The committee heard testimony on HB 174, which would raise the statutory dry weight limit used to define certain off‑highway recreational vehicles (OHRVs). The bill’s sponsor said the change would accommodate heavier modern side‑by‑sides, permit battery‑powered electric models and reduce technical noncompliance for machines that now include comforts such as heaters, windshields and spare tires.

Representative John Ouellette (prime sponsor) said the OHRV fleet has evolved from utilitarian 4x4 work units to larger recreational models and that manufacturers increasingly build heavier vehicles or electric platforms. “These vehicles are getting a little more fancy, a little more sophisticated,” he told the committee, adding the change is meant to keep those machines legal for trail systems that limit width but not the proposed adjusted weight.

Supporters’ view: Steven Wilke, representing the New Hampshire Off‑Highway Vehicle Association (NOVA), said clubs and the national Recreational Off‑Highway Vehicle Association have studied the issue and recommended the increase to allow electric and factory‑equipped machines to operate legally. Wilke said vehicle width limits (65 inches on many state trails) would remain unchanged and that tire technology and low‑pressure, wider tires reduce ground pressure compared with high‑pressure automobile tires.

Opponents’ view: Landowner and forestry groups, and several local residents, opposed the proposal. Jason Stock, executive director of the New Hampshire Timberland Owners Association, said most trail mileage is on private land and that heavier vehicles would increase maintenance costs for private landowners who permit access. He told the committee private haul roads and skid trails were not engineered for larger rolling loads and that increased fines and loss of surface material can accelerate erosion.

Public safety and infrastructure concerns were raised. Claude Pigeon, a long‑time motorized user and trail manager, described how heavier, shorter‑wheelbase recreational vehicles change dynamic loads on small bridges and trail crossings that were built for lighter machines or occasional logging traffic. Pigeon argued that the change in rolling inertia and center‑of‑gravity dynamics could increase tip‑over risk and cause greater bridge loading in designs that were never engineered for those weights.

Enforcement and statutory clarity: Several witnesses noted the practical limits of enforcing an unladen‑dry weight limit in the woods: Fish and Game and municipal officers do not routinely carry scales and manufacturers’ “dry weight” figures vary by convention. Representative questions on enforcement produced candid answers: enforcement personnel said there is no practical field weighing protocol for OHRVs and that many current machines already exceed the older weight threshold once common aftermarket equipment and spare supplies are included.

Agency position: Captain Michael Eastman of Fish and Game stated the commission ultimately supported the bill in committee, noting the width cap and other existing trail‑management rules provide some protections against indiscriminate use of heavier vehicles.

Outcome at hearing: The committee recorded a blue‑sheet count of 5 in favor, 4 opposed and 1 neutral. Opponents urged the panel to let the OHRV study commission continue vetting equipment changes and to consider landowner protections, bridge assessments and enforcement mechanisms before a statutory change.

What’s next: Committee members asked for additional technical material from manufacturers and trail engineers, and witnesses said they will provide comparative tire and vehicle‑load data for further review.