(Submitted By Peter Sandstrom, MVTR, 1/7/02)

This letter was emailed to Mr. John Alger, Chairman of the NH State Resources, Recreation, and Development Committee, on January 6th, 2002 by Peter Sandstrom, MVTR's appointed representative to the Granite State ATV Association.  HB-717 has morphed into HB-1273, and  is now the current legislative work in process targeting  Wheeled Off-Highway Recreational vehicles in the state of New Hampshire.

The comment below references the HB-1273 draft published by Mr. Alger's committee on Friday, January 4rth, 2002 for review by the committee and general public. See the previous entry in the "MVTR Activist" for a full transcript of HB-1273.

It is the opinion of the author of this letter that there appears at this time to be some serious flaws with this piece of legislation as it now stands in draft form.  Below is comment addressing some of those issues.

_{________________________________________________________}

Greetings Mr. Alger:

I just got a copy of the HB1273 Amendment forwarded to me last night by Richard Goudarsi, read through it, and now have several issues that I’d like to respond to. I hope to make it to the meeting tomorrow morning and discuss this further. However, if that’s not possible let this email stand as MVTR's position on the items listed below.

Sincerely

Peter Sandstrom, MVTR Appointed GSATV Board Member

Page 2, (5. Amend RSA 215-A:23)- We would like to add wording something in the order of …

Any trail bike in NH that is registered and made legal to be used on the public highway system in NH pays the town that machine resides in anywhere from $85 to $125 per year in registration fees. The majority of that money then goes direct to the towns law enforcement agency. That being the case we feel it only far that some sort of fee reduction be allowed for this type of WOHRV as the OHRV registration fee is in large part going to law enforcement, and as such in this case sets up a double tax on a single type of WOHRV user.

Page 2: ( 7, Amend RSA 215-A:23)- MVTR is delighted to see this concept of separate accounts being contemplated for wheeled OHRVs and snowmobiles. As it stands now the majority of fees collected from the WOHRV groups is unfairly paid out by DRED to projects targeted at snow machines for winter-time activities. So we would support this new "seperate account" concept 100%. However, WOHRV's still need a way to make use of the sate trail system in the winter. MVTR would like to suggest using an add-on "winter-time sticker" that a WOHRV user could purchase as an optional rider to a standard non-wintertime registration sticker. 

To date WOHRV users have paid millions into the winter trail system over the last 15 years and helped bring it to where it is today. So severing winter-time use now to the WOHRV community now would be unfair. Note that Richard Goudarsi of GSATV will be elaborating more detail on how this arrangement might work, and has been given input and full support from MVTR to move forward with this.

Page 4: 12 (Amend RSA 215-A:29, II(a))- if this is left to stand it then it appear to me that any individual under the age of 16 is now no longer allowed to use and ATV or trail bike on any land but his own private property. So in essence this wording appears to be a ban for younger riders; i.e. our own kids can now no longer ride their trail bikes or ATV’s. As this stands MVTR would vehemently oppose this amendment. This goes against everything I thought your committee was trying to accomplish. Younger riders are a large part of the WOHRV community and banning their activities is not a solution.

Page 7, Line 20 (215-A:43 ATV and Trail Bike Trails)- It puzzles me, with all this work having been done by your committee to find a solution for the WOHRV community to find suitable places to ride, that wording like his can somehow work its way into draft legislation at such a late stage. A "700 acre contiguous property requirement" would in essence be a ban on WORV park projects. There is very few if any sites that could meet this requirement. I’m personally working with an ATV club and the selectmen in the town of Sanbornton to put together an WORV loop using class 6 roads, private land, and town land. If we have to abide by this wording then we will simply have to abandon the project. MVTR strongly opposes this requirement and would ask that it be removed from the bill.

Page 8, Line 21-27 (215-A:43 ATV and Trail Bike Trails)- these limitations on where trails can be located with respect to water and elevation or far to restrictive. I suspect that if this becomes law then the Clough WORV state park would need to be closed as it would be in violation of this specification. If NH were a desert then this might be workable but that’s not case. MVTR would ask the committee to revisit these specifications, and alter them to be far less restrictive.

Page 9, Line 18 (215-A:45 OHRV Club Requirement)- I don’t believe the state can force individuals to join a WORV club as I suspect it’s not constitutional. As such MVTR would oppose this amendment, and ask that it be removed.