User conflicts in Bear Brook State Park

[Sci Teach]

ATTENTION TO ALL WHO LIKE TO RIDE IN BEAR BROOK STATE PARK!!!!

The State of New Hampshire passed a referrendum last fall that provided access to ALL state lands for ATV users. This has come to a head, now with a proposal for ATV acces to a previously closed area to them, Bear Brook State Park. Not only will they now be able to ride in the park (be it on certain trails) a proposal to build upwards of 20 MILES of new trail for the ATV's has been put forward. AAAAHHHHH!!! So much for the peace and quiet that the park traditionally offers us! Currently, there is a comment period...WE NEED TO COMMENT !! We need to voice our opinions about this type of land abuse.....mine can't be printed here...........
I'm getting all the important information together, and will post the comment information later....

[splat]

Think of it another way , Banning one group opens the door to banning Mt bikes. as long as ATV are there our Bikes are safe.

[Sci Teach]

Unfortunatly, the philosophy "ban one type of use and you should ban all use" is not reality. Just look at the state lands in Mass. Do THEY allow ATV's there....sure don't...and we all enjoy biking at these places and have good relations with the land managers. How would you like it if ATV's were allowed to ride the single track the mountain biker hands build and maintain atplaces like Blue hills, Wompi, Great Brook, the Midstate trail, Mount Greylock, ETC. Think of it in these terms and you see the issue. ATV's have never been allowed to use state lands...until now...in NH. Problem being, one of the state reps pushing this bill thru (with the help of some of his cronies) is the LARGEST ATV distributer in the state....no conflict here, right! A little disturbing, to say the least!
Other examples of MTB loss and ATV gain are happening in ohter places as well...Look at Fruita...check out the IMBA site...see what's up there...MTB built trails have been proposed as new ATV recreation areas......

We need to stick together as a user group and get off our duffs, get some money together and DO SOMETHING! LET'S GO NEMBA!!!! 47 acres at NAM is a good start....there are 15,000 acres of land that need our help at Bear Brook!

[CouchingTiger]

Are you certain that offroad motorcycle/ATV's were banned from Bear Brook? I'm pretty sure that w/ valid NH OHRV registration, Bear Brook was at least partially legal. Maybe not.

Anyhow, who cares. Why shouldn't they be allowed to use land that their tax dollars pay for just like everyone else? If you look at the entire state of NH there are ike 15 places to legally ride a registered ATV. How many places are there to mountain bike and how many people actually mountain bike vs. how many people actually ATV? I'd have to guess that there are more of them.

Share the trails doesn't mean hikers and mountainbikers only, it means all users. It's all good if it gets you off the couch and out the door, well, unless you're molesting puppies or something like that ;)

Word!

-Couch

[splat]

Motorcycles are allowed in Most of the Nam, as a matter of fact they created most of the trails.

We have been in enough Place were people are trying to ban Me from doing something I love, I'm Not going to turn around and do the same thing to another group because I don't enjoy that activity.

I look at it as a 2 way street , if you want people to accept you , you have to accept others .

So are you also saying , that after nemba buys the 47 acres of the Nam , they should Ban ATV's on it ?

[AA]

Banning ATV use at Bear Brook isnt a great idea, however I think that there should be some trails in the park where motorized vehicles are not allowed. What I'm saying is include everyone in some capacity.

A good example of this is Savoy MT st park in Florida MA. They have trails where 4x4's are allowed, some for ATV's & motorcycles, some for horses bikes and hiking, and some hiking only.

I have a motorcycle (I ride it in the woods very infrequently) and I will admit that there are some trails that are not suited for motor vehicle use. Will a tight twisty singletrack get blown out by ATV's and MXers, yes. Sounds like the local NEMBA chapter should get together with the land manager and the other trail users at Bear Brook and come up with a usage plan that everyone can live with.

[CouchingTiger]

I agree wholly with A-balm, something for everyone but not necessarily the same thing for all. Everyone should get to play though, even the ugly red-hedded step-children ;)

-Couch

Just look at the state lands in Mass. Do THEY allow ATV's there....sure don't...

Sci Teacher -

I think I rode with you the last part of the Turkey Burner this year...I'm from Exeter and was demoing a Jekyll. Hopefully we schedule some rides for Ft. Rock as the weather cooperates.

Anyway, I applaud your efforts and I too enjoy Bear Brook from time to time. I would like to note, that in a prior life when I lived in MA, I rode Foxboro State Park and they do indeed allow ATV's and actually have races there. They have some great MTB trails and we were able to co-exist as they built a majority of the main trails and then all the good singletrack was developed off those. Was it ideal to have to pull aside for a group of two strokes to whizz by...no, but we all played by the rules and MTB's still enjoyed all Foxboro/Wrentham had to offer.

Secondly, Clough State Park in NH (up around Concord) has great riding as well. They have an unbelievable amount of ATV's in there depending on when you go. At times it made riding cumbersome, but again, we played by the rules.

Since I am local, shoot me a PM and I will help in anyway. Not sure if trying to eliminate ATV is the way to go, but try to come to a middle ground. I've never strategized on something like. Heck, I'm just a stupid software sales guy, but willing to help. If you already haven't I would sugget contacting the SNEMBA president. You might already have and I believe you know him. Keep me posted.

Thanks,

NOO

[T Grimble]

It strikes me as ironic that we would choose the same arguments that hikers have used for years against us. I have a friend who proposed a theory to me. Let’s call it the descending order of tolerance. The people who engage in higher impact activities are more likely to tolerate other uses. ATV’s can tolerate any use while Mountain bikers only tolerate hikers and equestrians and so. The pecking order would seem to be bird watchers, hikers, trail runners, equestrians, mountain bikers, motorized trail bikes, ATV’s, Jeeps. There are appropriate places for any trail user and places where certain uses are inappropriate. The trick is to make the decisions based on facts or at least current scientific thinking. Excluding one group of users because you find their activity objectionable is not right even if it is a widely accepted practice. I don’t want to ride in the back of the bus so I am not going relegate that position to anybody else. There are several published studies available that discuss the management of multiple users on recreational trail systems and the effects that different users have on the land. Most of these studies can be found in the NEMBA reading room. They are far from complete but represent the best of our current thinking.

[AGENTGRAPE]

to try and stay in the context . in the providence phoenix dec 20-26 issue on the front page. is an article titled 'tear'n it up' it is about how atv's and dirt bikes are destroying an area known as carbuncle pond in coventry ri it goes on about how for a while there were places to ride off road that were overseen by NETRA but they didnt maintain the properties and riders were ridingout of the designated areas so they were shut down to riding. if anyone wants a copy i will try get them to you. my personal feeling on off road vehicles is not too good having been run off trails, my wife and dogs coming close to being driven over. and everywhere you see them they have churned the ground into beach sand. or cut giant donuts into the ground. why dont off roaders do trail work. is it too much work after destroying something to fix it? also most wont get out of the way in places where they dont belong. i do not think its funny when they rip by yelling at you to fet the f*#& out of the way. this is why i am pissed. let them do some work and take a little responsibility for their actions

[Sky Pilot]

that place is jinxed...

i showed up on a july saturday for an event that was actually on sunday. then, 3 minutes into a consolation ride i went over the bars almost dislocating my shoulder. it still gives me trouble. :'(

back on the bike only to catch up to my friend who'd just cracked his frame. mercifully a quick end to our day...who knows what could have happened had we remained.

and now, division entering the nemba forum.

bear brook is a place of shadow for me...i can't wait to get back.

[Sci Teach]

Glad I can stir up some emotions on this forum!

I think you should all take a look at NEMBA Bylaws before you slam me so hard...GEEZ! They do talk about protecting the open spaces/environment, I'm not sure whre ATV's fit into this!

Ya' know, I'm realy a nice, easy going guy who just likes to get away from the frenzy of the daily grind on my mountian bike....like you! And I don't like the noise or smell or what ATV's do to the trails.
I'm just trying to protect what I enjoy!

Also, for those who may not know, Bear Brook was created as a wildlife preserve. Not sure how that conflicts with the noise and smells of ATV's.

Lets' not turn this into a "you're either with me or against me" referrendum, but rather a productive discussion on how to resolve some concerns that many people have about the use of our open lands!
Hope that you'll let me ride with you all after this!!!!!!!

Peace!

[MissJean]

Hi Sci Teach,
I'm a member of the South Central NH chapter and I have some info about this subject I would like to pass on to you. (I did not see any email contact info for you) So if you could email me, jmwr2@juno.com, that would be great!
Jean Rubin

that place is jinxed...

i showed up on a july saturday for an event that was actually on sunday...... i went over the bars almost dislocating my shoulder. .........my friend who'd just cracked his frame.....

Dont forget the car sickness on the way there...i cant wait to get back either

[T Grimble]

At a public meeting once an anti mountain biker made a number of arguments why mountain bikes should be banned from the property. Actually this has happened dozens of times but one time in particular they argued that mountain bikers should be banned based on aesthetic concerns. What it came down to was they didn't want me there. The fact that do more trail work then most people and work actively to protect numerous parcels of land didn't mean anything. I could rattle off a number of other reasons why I think I am an upstanding citizen but that is not what this is all about. The issue was they couldn't see any of that because all I was to them was a nuisance.

I don't disagree with trying to manage the use of ATV's at Bear Brook. I think it would be a very good idea. I just think that reason you do it should be based on the impacts that they have on the environment. We have seen that this constituency is not well organized and does not advocate for itself. I just think we shouldn't use arguments that could easily be turned around and used on us.

Don't be offended by this discussion. I think it is a good debate.

[EVIL BOTA]

MTN Bikers, Hunter,Hikers ,Horse back riders and yes even the A.T.V.ers have the right to be out there. I'm sure we could all find a bitch about anyone of them. **** on the trail,hikers not giving way,hunters shooting you cause your wearing a cow bell around your neck and yes the A.T.V.'S do Rip up the trails. We just have to deal with it and ride on. I find that you only see the non mtn bikers on the weekends.. I do alot of my riding during the week and most of the time I have the woods all to my self. We can ride or bitch I'd rather ride

[splat]

Sci Teach

I'm Sure your a good guy , I just don't agree with you on the topic, and Right now we have a very good debate going on. Nothing wrong with a Good Debate, adds to the fun of this forum !

[Sci Teach]

I really am glad to see the discussion that is happening. Nothing better than a spirited debate!!!

This is a topic that needs to be discussed openly and freely...tell me if you think I'm off base...and I'll do the same for you...that's how we develop good ideas!

'Cause it all gets down to trying to set good policy for all of us.

Question does remain....how do we deal with the situation (the allowance of conflicting users) on the same turf?

How do we comment to those that are asking us what we think about this? 'Cause right now, the state of NH is asking us for our input.

[snembalen]

Many excellent points have been brought up in this discussion and it’s great to see the involvement and ideas flowing forth.
One thing we don’t want to get involved in is an “us against them” in any situation. This holds true for all trail use groups.
There are places that ATV’s, or bicyclist, equestrians, hikers etc, should be allowed and not allowed. I do think there are areas that would be more sensitive for ATV’s but it is the land owners that need to, and will, determine what is appropriate on their lands.
As trail advocates it is our responsibility to advise landowners on concerns and also offer suggestions to accommodate any trail use they want to allow on their lands.
Of course I have been wrong many times before so I am probably way off here as well.

The State of NH is in a tough situation, they receive a substantial amount of money from ATV registrations to allow access onto approved state lands. ATV registrations have increased dramatically over the last five years, and the state needs to identify places for these people to ride. This is a requirement by a state law passed last year, HB1273. http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2002/hb1273.html
Bear Brook was chosen to be evaluated due to the size of the property as the state realizes it will need an area large enough to allow for an adequate experience for these users.

I just spoke to the “State” to get a status on the situation.
The Advisory Board has held the first meeting to determine if Bear Brook will meet the Fine Filter requirements, and not much was accomplished at that meeting other than confirming the requirements of the process.

Presently the state is evaluating Bear Brook for the following Fine Filter requirements:
(a) The new trail is supported by an organized ATV or trail bike club recognized by the bureau.
(b) ATVs or trail bikes operated on the trail will comply with maximum decibel limit established by law.
(c) Adequate parking exists or will be developed for the type of trail being proposed and the number of expected riders.
(d) The proposal is compatible with local planning and zoning ordinances.
(e) The proposed trail does not pass through a parcel with deed restrictions.
(f) The proposal is compatible with noise and obnoxious use ordinances.
(g) The proposal is reasonably compatible with existing uses.
(h) The proposal does not violate federal, state, or local laws.
(i) The proposal includes a monitoring and response system designed to detect and correct adverse environmental impacts.
(j) The proposed trail layout incorporates existing motorized travel corridors whenever possible.
(k) The proposed trail layout minimizes further fragmentation of blocks of forestland by locating trails on areas with existing development whenever possible.
(l) The proposed trail does not pass through a wellhead protection area as determined by the department of environmental services under RSA 485:48, II.
(m) The proposed trail is not located on earthen dams, dikes, and spillways.
(n) The proposed trail avoids areas having soil types classified as important forest soil group IIA or IIB as defined and mapped by the Natural Resources Conservation Service, unless there is an existing soil condition or surface roadway that can be used to reduce adverse environmental impacts.
(o) The proposed trail is not within 100 feet of the ordinary high water mark of first and second order streams, 330 feet of third order streams, and 600 feet of fourth order and higher streams, except for purposes of stream crossing.
(p) All stream crossing structures meet 5-year flood design criteria.
(q) The proposed trail is not within 200 feet of any water body, forested or non-forested wetland, or vernal pool.
(r) The proposed trail avoids elevations over 2700 feet.
(s) The proposed trail avoids important wildlife habitat features for species of concern.
(t) The proposed trail avoids known locations of federally and state listed endangered or threatened species, or their habitat, as specified on a site-specific basis by the fish and game department.
(u) The proposed trail avoids known locations of rare plants and exemplary natural communities, as specified on a site-specific basis by the natural heritage inventory.
(v) The proposed trail avoids alteration or disturbance of unique geologic features, formations, and designated state geologic waysides, as specified on a site-specific basis by the state geologist.
(w) The proposed trail avoids alteration, disturbance, and adverse impacts to cultural and historic resources.
(x) The proposed trail is not within 330 feet of known raptor nest trees, or within 650 feet of trees with eagle or osprey nests.
(y) The proposed trail is more than 650 feet from eagle winter roosting areas and 330 feet from the edge of wetlands containing heron rookeries.
(z) The proposed trail layout has a safe and appropriate trail design.
(aa) Safety standards for highway crossings are met.
(bb) Any planned use of the proposed trail with other uses is safely accommodated.
(cc) Local enforcement officers have been contacted to review and provide input regarding enforcement issues.

I hope that helps to inform you to where we are in the process. Keep the discussion going!

[DVRider]

The pecking order would seem to be bird watchers, hikers, trail runners, equestrians, mountain bikers, motorized trail bikes, ATV’s, Jeeps.


Hey Tom, I think there's a Trail Advocacy T-shirt in this quote somewhere!

[MR. Pinchy]

Well opinions are like butt holes, so heres mine.. I would have to agree that the ATV'ers DO have a right to be able to access those lands to a degree, otherwise they would be infringing on sensitive areas. (that sound familiar? :( ) it's sad but true other groups say it about us. There are alot of people out there that just shouldn't be. MTB'ers screaming at hikers, hunters, dog walkers, and eqestriens to get out of THEIR? way. Hikers putting logs and even traps to try to damage motorized/non motorized bikes as to scare them off THEIR? trails. Equestriens taking their horses onto singletrack that they may or may not belong on, and should certainly not be leaving big piles of crap on! Hunters who would be better off at a hunters safety course, or on their couch watching the game! By the way my folks live in Deerfield N.H. and hunt (SAFELY!) and it is my understanding that only bowhunting is allowed at Bear Brook and they are so quiet, hunt at such close ranges (under 100 yds) and usually from a tree stand that you'd never even know they were there. Then there are ATV'ers who don't always stay on the proper trails for them, But alot of them do because they as well as us know that we are privleged to be able to use these trails and don't want that privlige taken away by a land manager whose dog walkin horse ridin wife got run off the trail by some jerk all huffed up on adrenalinand dosen't want to use their brakes! (paints a pretty ugly picture dosen't it?!!!!!). So what it really comes down to is who really has a right to what land and who is privledged to be there? By the way My folks live next door to a kid (about 15 years old) who races dirt bikes at the 125 or 250 class at a state and mabey soon national championship level, he also is a hunter, and a Mt biker (and his folks have cool chickens that are always running around my folks property). It's like this people are hunters, then they got horeses to hunt from, then they used dogs to hunt, then they walked and used horses for trasportasion and recreation then came the bicycle then the car and motorcycle then the off road motorcycle then the off road truck then the ATV then finally the Mt bike.. Also I belive the federal government has passed a law stateing that all new ATV'S must have 4 stroke engines to cut emisions, and noise...... whew my fingers are sore..... just something to ponder. Later.....

[MissJean]

Check out the discussion on ATVs in Bear Brook on www.WMURchannel.com Click on "forums" then "news".
They have a good debate going.

[knucklebuste]

Damn, I couldn't even get up to (h) without my ADD setting in.
Knuckle


Presently the state is evaluating Bear Brook for the following Fine Filter requirements:
(a) The new trail is supported by an organized ATV or trail bike club recognized by the bureau.
(b) ATVs or trail bikes operated on the trail will comply with maximum decibel limit established by law.
(c) Adequate parking exists or will be developed for the type of trail being proposed and the number of expected riders.
(d) The proposal is compatible with local planning and zoning ordinances.
(e) The proposed trail does not pass through a parcel with deed restrictions.
(f) The proposal is compatible with noise and obnoxious use ordinances.
(g) The proposal is reasonably compatible with existing uses.
(h) The proposal does not violate federal, state, or local laws.
(i) The proposal includes a monitoring and response system designed to detect and correct adverse environmental impacts.
(j) The proposed trail layout incorporates existing motorized travel corridors whenever possible.
(k) The proposed trail layout minimizes further fragmentation of blocks of forestland by locating trails on areas with existing development whenever possible.
(l) The proposed trail does not pass through a wellhead protection area as determined by the department of environmental services under RSA 485:48, II.
(m) The proposed trail is not located on earthen dams, dikes, and spillways.
(n) The proposed trail avoids areas having soil types classified as important forest soil group IIA or IIB as defined and mapped by the Natural Resources Conservation Service, unless there is an existing soil condition or surface roadway that can be used to reduce adverse environmental impacts.
(o) The proposed trail is not within 100 feet of the ordinary high water mark of first and second order streams, 330 feet of third order streams, and 600 feet of fourth order and higher streams, except for purposes of stream crossing.
(p) All stream crossing structures meet 5-year flood design criteria.
(q) The proposed trail is not within 200 feet of any water body, forested or non-forested wetland, or vernal pool.
(r) The proposed trail avoids elevations over 2700 feet.
(s) The proposed trail avoids important wildlife habitat features for species of concern.
(t) The proposed trail avoids known locations of federally and state listed endangered or threatened species, or their habitat, as specified on a site-specific basis by the fish and game department.
(u) The proposed trail avoids known locations of rare plants and exemplary natural communities, as specified on a site-specific basis by the natural heritage inventory.
(v) The proposed trail avoids alteration or disturbance of unique geologic features, formations, and designated state geologic waysides, as specified on a site-specific basis by the state geologist.
(w) The proposed trail avoids alteration, disturbance, and adverse impacts to cultural and historic resources.
(x) The proposed trail is not within 330 feet of known raptor nest trees, or within 650 feet of trees with eagle or osprey nests.
(y) The proposed trail is more than 650 feet from eagle winter roosting areas and 330 feet from the edge of wetlands containing heron rookeries.
(z) The proposed trail layout has a safe and appropriate trail design.
(aa) Safety standards for highway crossings are met.
(bb) Any planned use of the proposed trail with other uses is safely accommodated.
(cc) Local enforcement officers have been contacted to review and provide input regarding enforcement issues.

I hope that helps to inform you to where we are in the process. Keep the discussion going!

[MissJean]

Notice of Public Meeting

Due to strong public concern, the Allenstown Selectmen have organized a public meeting to make sure that Allenstown residents, neighboring communities, and other interested parties understand the proposed plan and what they can do about it.

Meeting Date/Time: Wednesday, Feb 26, 2003 at 7PM
Meeting Location: Suncook Business Park, Rt 28,
Allenstown, NH
Directions: From the intersection of Rts 3 and 28 in
Allenstown, head north on Rt 28 for 0.6 miles.
Suncook Business Park will be on your right.

For more information, contact Sandra McKenny (Allenstown Selectman) at (603) 485-7187

This info was taken from an email sent to me by Phil Trowbridge.

[nhiker]

As a late addition to this discussion...maybe too late the following is an e-mail address to write to if you agree or disagree or what have you.....Just making your view heard is important. I think you can disagree without speaking for Nemba or all mountainbikers by the way.

nhparks@dred.state.nh.us

[DaBomb]

if you already saw this on Busted Spoke, pardon me:

I don't know Bear Brook State park very well so maybe I should just stay out of this discussion. Because ultimately I believe that all trail decisions should be made on a local level. Each park is different and each user group best knows how to manage their own trails.

But on a more general level I find it kind of controversial to support a ban of ATV's. I know that they cause massive damage, compared to bikes, XC, Freeride DH bikes whatever, and all of you guys know it too. But you see so many comparisons made between the FreeRide scene and Motocross, that standing behind a ban of one almost welcomes the ban of the next.

Again, I realize that this may not relate because they are removing a ban rather than applying one. But do you guys catch my general drift...? What does everyone think about this...?

Assuming Bear Brook is currently open to bikes, it would be useful to document the trail conditions BEFORE it is open to ATV's. That way, an AFTER comparison could be made. Assuming it gets trashed after a year of ATV usage, the comparison may serve to help illustrate the fact that bikes, of any kind, have a far different impact than ATV's.

Anyone local, have a good camera? Regardless of your point of view, I think it would be helpful

[SuperFat]

It's a little to late for before and after pictures. The illegal use of ATV's in the park and on surrounding private properties has already done significant damage. Local authorities do not have the equipement or manpower to provide sufficient enforcement. An example of the damage: The west end of the Hall Mt. Trail has been torn to bits. What used to be some dry and sweet single track is now six feet wide with ruts two feet deep and full of water and muck. >:(

[rideitall]

why is it that the user group that never pays a dime wants the dem to see things there way?states need money, mountian bikes do not generate any.you people are funny,you want it your way without any cost to your self. well,got to go,time to register the mtn. bike,ya like that will happen

[BrianK]

why is it that the user group that never pays a dime wants the dem to see things there way?states need money, mountian bikes do not generate any.you people are funny,you want it your way without any cost to your self. well,got to go,time to register the mtn. bike,ya like that will happen


First, MTBers in general do more trail mantainence than ATV'ers. Sure there are ATV groups that do trail work, but not nearly as much as MTBers do.

Second, who cares about money spent? Spending money doesn't always entitle you do things. I can't pay a fee and then go kill someone I dislike. I can't pay $100 and burn down a nearby forrest. ATV's pay a registration fee because they cost the state money in maintainence. You can't deny ATVs tear up the ground about 50X faster than a bike. MTBing is almost a self maintaining sport. What damage we do, we try to control. If we don't, we lose access. ATVers are lucky in NH. You just pay a fee and tear up the ground as much as you want.

Now I'm not saying I want to ban ATVing from anywhere. Like most people here, banning one group of users is opening the door up to ban us. I just think your comments were stupid. Not everything in this world is about generating money (even though it seems that way sometimes).