This letter was emailed to Mr. John Alger, Chairman of the NH State Resources, Recreation, and Development Committee, back in December 2001. It was intended to give him and the other members in his committee feedback on positions held by MVTR regarding the upcoming HB717 legislation.  

Greetings Gentlemen:

There was limited time at the HB-717 hearing earlier this month so I didn't get to go run through the whole roster of issues concerning the group I represent. That being the case please let this letter serve an addendum to that discussion for me, and the Merrimack Valley Trail Riders Association (MVTR) that I'm representing. MVTR is the states largest 'off-road motorcycle club", and comprises roughly 250 members. We've been politically active within the state for the last 15 years, and have been instrumental in working with the New Hampshire state government in realizing legislation for trail bikes; i.e. street legalization of dual sport trail bikes. We also host annual national dual-sport trail ride (i.e. the NH Classic,  http://www.mvtr.org/kclassic-01.html) which raises more money for charity then probably any other single WOHRV or snowmobile club in the state.

Our other major claim to accomplishment is the sponsorship, maintenance, and oversight of the Clough OHRV State park. MVTR initiated that project many years ago, and has continued through the years to work with the state to improve on the facility. We view Clough as a microcosm of what could be accomplished on larger scale in this state, and feel that duplication of Clough multiple times over could solve the major problems now at hand for wheeled off highway recreational vehicle (WOHRV) users, private land owners, the state. And at the same time we could realize a new source of non-winter revenue for the residents of this state.

So as we watch this ATV explosion it has us concerned. Although we are relatively small (nine 4-wheelers them for every two MC), and different in comparison to the 4-wheeled users, we see our community being grouped together with the 4 wheeled OHRV's. As such we want to make sure that legislation drafted for this much larger 4 wheeled OHRV segment does not ruin and undo for us much of what we've fought for and earned in the past.

Most of our members ride "street legal dual sport motorcycles"; 90% of us title, register, and inspect our machines. The remaining 10% use their machines for competition in closed courses sanctioned events on private land, and/or are younger individuals riding in a closed course areas.

That all said we come to the table with perhaps a different perspective then our 4-wheeled brethren. Below is a list of high-points that Richard Gudarzi of Granite State ATV had compiled as being major issues that confronted the WOHRV community. I've taken that list and made responses indicating how MVTR would view these issues from a two-wheeled/dual-sport/street-legal point of view. Please us this response as feedback from the two wheeled segment of the NH WOHRV community when you begin drafting legislation this coming session.

Also, please make note that we are different from our more numerous 4-wheeled friends. We have a different set of needs and concerns pertaining to "wheeled off-highway recreation" in New Hampshire. So we strongly hope that you take this into consideration , and that the legislation you ultimately engineer for the WOHRV users in New Hampshire reflects this situation. At the same time we also realize that we have much in common with the 4-wheeled community, and are prepared to work with them to achieve more notable positive success stories for the future, just as we've done in the past.

Sincerely

Peter Sandstrom, MVTR Appointed Board Member to GSATV

1. Trials bureau should move forward with projects in process where trail maintenance is assured due to local club involvement.

2. DRED should move forward with Nash Stream - connecting trail only.

3. DRED should select ONE new site within the state park system to develop a new ATV trail.

MVTR- With over 22,000 wheeled OHRV sticker sold each year grossing close to $1.0 M dollars this seems a bit unfair to the WOHRV community. There are potentially 12 sites that have been identified in this state that could be suitable for WOHRV trails. That being the case MVTR thinks that the roughly $1M taken in from WOHRV stickers should be able to support far more then a "one site effort".

4. The Office of State Planning (in cooperation with DRED) should prepare an ATV Trail Plan that will:

* Assess current ATV trails system available, predict the next ten years  growth and propose criteria and miles of trail needed to meet that growth;

MVTR- that plan should be based on a budget derived from the wheeled OHRV community (at this moment roughly $1M/year).

* Propose UP TO three sites for ATV trails Propose site for acquisition of land for ATV trails EMPHASIS on self-contained sites - NOT LINEAR TRAIL.

MVTR- the current revenue from wheeled vehicles should be able to support a larger effort then this. Else the leftover revenues should be escrowed and saved for future projects.

* Finish plan by December 31.2002.

MVTR- we would support.

5. New trails created ONLY when there is a working agreement between DRED and local club.

MVTR- a reasonable position, and one that MVTR could support.

6. Close trail if club doesn't keep up maintenance

7. A new trail may be developed ONLY when DRED/Trails Bureau and Fish and Game have the resources to monitor ATV use and enforce applicable laws.

MVTR- we would not want to see sizable portions of the wheeled OHRV budget ear-marked for law enforcement, and then draw away from the creation of new facilities. A benchmark enforcement standard, such as is in place at the Clough OHRV park, would likely be agreeable to MVTR members.

8. "It is understood" that ATV trails may be incompatible with other users.

MVTR- we see no major incompatibilities with 2 wheeled and 4-wheeled OHRVs; i.e. motorcycles and 4 wheelers. And I don't think 2-wheeled users in general mind sharing the trails with others such as mountain bikes, hikers, etc. But going in the opposite direction, I suspect those other groups probably have little interest in sharing a facility with us. So yes, I guess we would agree that "it is understood....".

1. Require purchase of an ATV TITLE for $30

MVTR- most of the members in our organization, and the two wheeled community at large in NH, make their machines street legal and then register them with the state for operation on the public highway system. That being the case this concept of a title is somewhat of a non-issue for us, as almost all of us do it now anyway. However, for those users who will never make their machines legal for road use we see the notion of a title as simply another tax on them.. As such, we would like not to see this made a requirement for the OHRV community as a whole.

2. Require dealer to secure signature from ATV purchaser that they "understand the law."

MVTR- without understanding the legal ramifications of this I suspect MVTR could support.

3. REGISTRATION- ALL ATV's (being used off personal property) register annually at the fees of: instate $67 out of state $87.

MVTR we would strongly oppose this. As it is now the WOHRV community gets back only about 9% of their sticker fees to develop facilities to ride. Instead the bulk of this money goes to the snow-mobile community, and or the budgets of Fish&Game and DRED. So as it stands right now this arrangement is quite unfair and discriminatory. It has taken advantage of the weaknesses of a politically smaller group, and has allowed the more powerfull snowmobile lobby to take the WOHRV user's money, while at the same time effectively banned WOHRV's from using trails supported by WOHRV money in Winter.

Please note that only a small percentage of the members in our club, and the two wheeled community in general, actually ride in the winter in large part to this defacto snowmobile trail ban put in place by the snowmobile lobby; we can't ride connector trails, and can only ride corridor trails if we know the land owner allows WOHRVs. So before we start looking at raising the WOHRV fee's we need to reconcile this unfair allocation process, and bring back WOHRV funds to projects targeted for WOHRV's specifically.

Note that we're not suggesting we create a WOHRV fund separate from the snow-mobile fund. Rather we're asking that we look at how these funds are allocated, and in the end make this a more equitable situation for the WOHRV users.

4. License plate attached to ATV.

MVTR- since 90% of our members, and the rest of the 2-wheeled community at large, have street legal trail bikes this is again somewhat of a non-issue for us; we for the most part already have license plates. As such, we would probably see no major issues with supporting this. However, don't all sleds and WOHRV's have defacto license plates via "the sticker" already?

Operator Requirements

1. ALL operators will have to be a member of a "licensed club" by end of 2004.

MVTR- although this would be great for our annual club budget I don't think it would be legal, or for that matter constitutional. As such I don't believe MVTR could support this measure.

2. ALL operators must complete a state approved education program.

MVTR - for owners and users of street legal trail-bikes I think we would oppose this as we've already gone through one fairly rigorous training course; i.e. the state motorcycle license program.

For the remainder we would be in favor of supporting a state approved education program for users under 12 years of age that intend to ride on the NH state trails systems; just as is done today with the NH snowmobile community.

3. PENALTIES to be increased and points on drivers licenses for violations.

MVTR- for issues regarding riding while intoxicated, riding an unlicensed WOHRV on the road illegally, and for speeding in clearly marked state trail systems that have a speed restriction MVTR, would support some sort of penalty system.

However linking to ones driver license may be impossible as many of these operators on 4-wheelers will not have a license due to age. As such we feel a penalty in the form of a fine would be more appropriate.

4. Fish and Game continue to be primary enforcement

MVTR- we would support.

5. A portion of increased fees to be dedicated to enforcement activities and involvement of local policing agencies.

MVTR- if the WOHRV community could get back a fair portion of it's annual Off-Highway sticker fee then there should be plenty of money for enforcement activities. Instead of the 91% of our monies flowing to snowmobile winter activities lets instead put forth say only 5% to this, and let the remaining 91% of those funds be made available for WOHRV facilities, and WOHRV law enforcement. Such a distribution would more accurately reflect the actual summer/winter WOHRV usage patters.

6. Financial Assumptions: The fee increases will provide an additional $875,000.

MVTR- we strongly oppose. We must first get back the funds going to the snow-mobile community. Then and only then if it was found that more money was needed to support the WOHRV activities would we be open to discussion regarding rate hikes.