(Submitted By Peter Sandstrom & Todd Wilson, 1/14/02)

The following is an email dialogue between MVTR members Todd Wilson,  Peter Sandstrom ,and Richard Goudarzi of GSATV. It basically states MVTR's position on HB-1273, as published on 1/7/02,  and why MVTR can not support it in it's current form; i.e. because of the "Coarse and Fine Filter Criteria".

_{________________________________________________________}

Hi Rich:

I guess I'd made up my mind prior, but Todd Wilson's note below has given me the legal perspective that I needed to solidify my position. Even though we've fixed two major problems with the bill since last week (i.e. "forced club enrollment" and "banning the sport for youth under 16"), as is I still can't support it. The "filter" makes this legislation unworkable for me. As such I would vote "NO" as a GSATV board member if what comes out tomorrow is essentially the same thing that was introduced on 1/7/02 with respect to the "coarse and fine filter".

As is now we are looking at massive fee increases, no protections for our money going to the snowmobile community, and a virtual ban on new state WOHRV parks. That being the case there is nothing here in this bill that I feel has any value for the group I represent.

I do feel however that the recommendations and changes you introduced last Monday on 1/7/02 to the committee fix this bill, and would allow me and MVTR to vote for it. But something tells me those amendments will be largely ignored, and what will surface tomorrow will be essentially the same document that was introduced last Monday by Mr. Alger.

Sincerely

Peter Sandstrom

_{________________________________________________________}

(From Todd Wilson (MVTR) To Peter Sandstrom (MVTR/GSATV Board), 1/14/02)

Pete,

After reviewing the latest revision of the bill, I feel the need to comment on its current state. Keep in mind that I have not been involved with the bill since its inception (as you and Richard have been), but only am aware of what you and Richard have told me about its later development.

The part that I find most alarming is also the coarse and fine filter criteria, although it is for a reason completely different from those expressed in the exceptionally well-written letter by Mr. Livingston. Here is why: Even the most carefully written and eloquently worded bill can leave a "gray area" that is open to interpretation. This is why we often have cases in front of judges, with expensive lawyers arguing for each side, about what the correct interpretation of the law is. How does the judge rule? As much as we'd like to believe it is in the manner that is most fair, that isn't usually the case. Instead, it is most often based on what is known as stare decisis, which is Latin for "to stand by things decided," or to base one's decision on laws that are already in place, as well as decisions that have already been made in previous cases. It is very common for judges to look to what is called "legislative intent" when making these crucial decision, so they can see what the legislature was trying to do when it originally made the law.

Looking at HB1273 as it currently stands, if it is adopted "as is," it would appear that the Legislature intended to have all the coarse and fine filter criteria in place prior to any trails being developed. This is DISTINCTLY different from the impression I got when I went to the meeting this past Monday. I understand the legislature wants to develop trails for OHRV's, and is giving the power to do so to DRED, and their Bureau of Trails. DRED is to use their judgment, and they are supposed to base their decision on what would best suit the multiple uses of all New Hampshire residents and visitors. This is the TRUE intent of the law.

DRED was part of a closed meeting, one where they developed the coarse and fine filter criteria that they are trying to insert into the law. This meeting was not open to the users, taxpayers or public in any way, yet by inserting the criteria that was developed at the closed meetings, they have essentially made the criteria LAW! No public comment about the criteria, no contesting the dimensions or categories, just an old-fashioned "trust us, we know what is best."

Further, if HB1273 is adopted as it is currently worded, judges years later will think that the intent of the Legislature was to make these coarse and fine filter criteria law.

DRED and the environmental lobbies would like us to "try their filter criteria." They said in the meeting that "if it doesn't work, we can try to amend the law next year." Rather than fight a difficult fight to have the law changed, let's eliminate the problem while we have a chance, and make the trail development based on need and shared use, not some arbitrary numbers that, according to environmentalist Robert Livingston, will eliminate all chance of trail development.

Sincerely,

Todd Wilson