Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the OHRV topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Debate over raising ORV weight limit exposes split between riders and landowners
Summary
HB1095, which would raise the ORV/UTV weight limit to 3,499 lb to reflect modern vehicles and electric models, drew support from riders and dealers and opposition from landowners and timberland groups who warned of erosion and maintenance costs; stakeholders discussed grant aid and landowner permissions.
Representative Mike Wlette, prime sponsor of House Bill 1095, told the committee the bill updates the off-highway recreational vehicle (OHRV/UTV) weight limit to reflect current models and potentially accommodate electric vehicles that are heavier. He emphasized the bill is intended as housekeeping to match what is in use today.
Supporters from the recreation community and dealers said the sport has evolved from two-seat utility machines to enclosed four-seat side-by-sides that commonly exceed the old 2,000 lb threshold and that clubs and clubs’ grant-aid programs have handled trail maintenance and emergency repairs. “When you have an enclosed cab vehicle...you drive slow,” Steve Wily of the New Hampshire OHRV Association said, arguing larger machines have not caused widespread closures of landowner access.
But multiple landowners, timberland owners and conservation groups opposed the change. Ann Davis, a landowner and member of the commission to study OHRV use, said heavier machines—electric or not—raise concerns about trail damage and erosion and noted that Maine landowners are opposing a similar change. Jason Stock, executive director of the New Hampshire Timberland Owners Association, provided photographs of banked turns, erosion and muddy ruts, and urged the committee to pair any weight-limit increase with greater funding or grant aid to offset landowner maintenance costs.
Testimony reflected the statutory reality that many trails cross private property and that landowner permission forms currently lack a weight field, complicating landowners’ ability to manage access by vehicle weight. Witnesses discussed enforcement, bridge capacities, seasonal allowances, and landowner rights to close access. Several speakers suggested a negotiated package—potentially additional grant aid or emergency funds—to address landowner costs if weight limits are increased.
The hearing closed after multi-stakeholder testimony; committee members signaled interest in further talks to seek compromise language that would address landowner maintenance funding and trail protection before final committee action.
