Senator Martin, Representative Davis and members of the Inland Fisheries and Wildlife Committee, I am Tom Doak, Executive Director of the Small Woodland Owners Association of Maine (SWOAM) testifying in opposition to LD 1209 "An Act to Regarding Stops of All-terrain Vehicles and Snowmobiles by Law Enforcement Officers".

Many of the issues around stops and enforcement of ATVs were discussed during the hearing on LD 254 earlier this session (which we strongly supported). So I won’t repeat our testimony here.

However, I think it is important to remember that landowners receive no benefit from allowing trails on their land. There are no payments; no leasing payments for use of the trails. As part of having a trail system for snowmobiles and ATVs, private landowners have been asked to cooperate. They have done just that. Maine has the largest ATV trail network in the country with about 6000 miles of trails. There are more than 14,000 miles of snowmobile trails in Maine; about 95% are on private land. Again, at no benefit to landowners.

Combined, there are more than 150,000 ATVs and snowmobiles registered in Maine and those registrations occur with the full understanding that the vast majority of the use will take place on private land. These are motorized vehicles operating on someone’s property. The economic value generated by ATV and snowmobiles exceeds $500 million dollars with the vast majority of that activity being generated from the use of private land. All of this use is free; with no tax dollars involved.

In our view, LD 1209, while well intended, is a big step in the wrong direction. It is not good for ATV riders, snowmobilers or landowners.

First, it sets up a system that if a landowner allows a designated snowmobile or ATV trail, the authority of law enforcement officers to enforce the ATV or snowmobile laws is automatically reduced. At the same time, allowing a trail is going to lead to more use. So more use and less law enforcement authority. Why would a landowner grant permission for a trail in the first place under these conditions? This is going to lead to fewer trails.

Second, this legislation compounds the issues of law enforcement involving ATVs which were fully discussed during the hearing on LD 254 earlier in the session by bringing snowmobiles into the mix. We still don’t see what is broken that needs this kind of fix.

Third, it establishes special status for authorized trails. It implies that ATV and snowmobile riders need special protection from law enforcement on trails systems, even those trails exist largely on private lands. Landowners have long been nervous about anything that seems to create a right or special status to trails voluntary provided by private landowners.

Fourth, this legislation would require reasonable articulable suspicion for stopping ATVs on a trail or within 20 feet of a trail. No landowner who gives permission for a trail expects that trail boundary to extend 20 feet to each side of the trail.

From a landowner perspective, Maine has the largest ATV trail network in the country and an extensive snowmobile trail system that by all measures has been a resounding success. The entire network is built upon access to private land. That access has been granted without any benefit to landowners. The State allows the use of snowmobiles and ATVs (and collects registration fees) knowing full well that the vast majority of that use will occur on private land. A few years ago, when many people wanted to ban ATVs, the State said if you allow ATVs to use your lands, we will make sure ATV laws are enforced. Landowner responded with allowing a major expansion of the ATV trail network. We thought that was the compromise; and a commitment. Now we are being asked to agree to ATV and snowmobile riders getting special protection from law enforcement officers while operating motorized vehicles largely on private land. What about protection of landowners?

The way you deal with enforcement of ATVs, and in this case snowmobiles, will set the tone for the relationship between landowners ATV riders and snowmobiles for years to come. The way you deal with this issue will also impact access to private land in general. You have a chance to reset the relationship back to the way it was, which allowed for the development of a trail network and use levels by rejecting this legislation and passing LD 254.