|
News
Summary of HB 898 Committee Workshop
3/14/07
I attended the subject work session at the invitation of the Legislators to provide
testimony and answer questions. Also in attendance were Chris Gamache, Chief NH Trail
Bureau, Tim Acerno, OHRV NH Fish & Game, and Andrew from ATV Watch. I had and took an
opportunity to introduce myself to Andrew and we had a brief conversation prior to the
start of the session. He explained he supported mushing but not the use of motorized
vehicles and I explained our reasons for using ATV's. We agreed that we would probably
have to disagree.
The only concerns about the Bill centered on our request to use ATV's for training.
Rather than give specific questions responded to, let me say I had to explain in
detail how we used the ATV as a tool. We run the engine to maintain speed, to operate
the lights for safety and in my case, for the hand warmers. We train for different
purposes (sprint and distance training), have different size teams and our training
runs are of varied lengths and at slightly different speeds (an initial speed of 20MPH
could occur at the start of a run but usually 10 to 16 MPH was average). Our training
typically takes place when temperatures are below 50 degrees and generally begins mid-
September to perhaps December before we are able to switch to sleds. We often train
early in the morning or later in the evening when temperatures are lower and traffic
on trails is lightest. Keith Bryar gave testimony at the public hearing that was
perhaps misunderstood by some committee members. I was asked if the dog team training
with an ATV would be accompanied by a lead ATV the same as when Keith runs a
snowmobile in front of his team on snow. I explained that Keith is the only musher I
know that trains in that manner and is fortunate enough to have a "staff" that assists
in his training whereas the rest of us train alone. I assured them there would be only
one ATV which would be attached to the dog team and no accompanying ATV's involved
(even by Keith).
The next topic centered on trails. I had to explain that all trails are not suitable
for training and we prefer an unpaved, firm surface suitably wide enough to pass other
trail users safely. Large crushed stone surfaces, rutted, muddy, or narrow twisting
trails were generally not suitable. Where we trained was discussed next. Why not be
restricted to motorized trails? Chris took much of this response and talked about how
we had developed a MOA with NHMA to use certain trails but shortly after entering the
agreement he was challenged by ATV Watch that he had no such authority to grant us
special usage permits. He had to rescind the agreement as they threatened to take him
to court and he had no funds for defense. He further stated that he still believes he
has the authority but it's not specifically called out anywhere. The committee was
unsure if he actually did or did not. Andrew from ATV Watch testified next that
although he supported mushing, he was against blurring the lines between motorized and
non-motorized trail usage and that this bill would blur those lines, allow motorized
usage where it should not be allowed, and be very difficult to enforce. At this point,
Tim Acerno spoke and disagreed with Andrew. He stated that he would have no problem
in enforcing and that it would not be unclear to him or his people if there was a dog
team attached to the ATV or not. He further stated that he was in support of the bill
and Chris's position. Further discussions ensued regarding perhaps the bill should be
amended to only allow usage on the trails called out in the MOA. Chris and I agreed
that we could live with this but it was not an ideal solution. We expressed concerns
that some of those trails could become unusable due to heavy traffic or other changes
and then be lost to the mushers or that other trails may become available or "found"
that would be suitable but were not included in the bill. Discussion also came up that
perhaps the legislature should grant special use authority to Chris to resolve that
issue but another committee member stated "What if management changes and the new
manager doesn't want to grant special use? Then the trails would be lost to the
mushers once again." I believe that issue was settled but the "restricting us to MOA
trails" could come up again.
Generally the committee understands what this bill will do and are pretty much in
favor of it but are somewhat uncomfortable in granting us "carte blanc" to all trails
in the State. However, they have not been able to come up with a strong working
alternative and may just go with the Bill as proposed. I believe that final decision
will be made in executive session tomorrow.
Perhaps the biggest surprise came at the end of the session after we had all said our
"thanks", when Andrew of ATV Watch asked to be recognized. He said "I just want to
thank the committee for all the time and effort you have put into this bill. I have
heard much thoughtful discussion and careful consideration and I am now much more
comfortable with this bill." To which the committee chairman replied "Well....., thank
you, and I think that's a great way to end our session." Although it wasn't an
endorsement, it sure sounded to me like Andrew was not going to give us any strong
opposition.
Executive session occurs tomorrow, open to the public (I think) but no public input. I
will attend. I believe the work session went well, I think I (with Chris and Tim)
answered all their questions and now must do some soul searching to determine if they
can pass it without any further amendments.
Respectfully submitted,
Jim Lalla
<< Back
|
|
