Look at numbers to divide land use

Globe North received many letters about the April 19 story, "Ban pits off-road enthusiasts against horse riders: Motorists angry about new rule for Georgetown-Rowley State Forest." Read more at boston.com/northtalk.

The dispute being played out at Georgetown-Rowley State Forest is but another chapter in the unending class struggle over what the role of government should be in subsidizing leisure activities of the various socioeconomic subgroups of society.

For example, golf courses, the playgrounds of the more affluent, are assessed at a very low percent of fair market value while bowling alleys, the recreation halls of the less affluent, pay the full freight of the real estate and other business taxes.

Now the battle is between the riding class, also for the most part affluent, and off-road vehicle drivers, mostly middle or working class, for the use of the state parks and forests. The fair answer, it seems to me, is to determine which trails or parts of the state forests and parks in Essex County can stand up to off-road vehicle use. Then open those parts of the state forests and parks to the use of drivers of such vehicles on the basis of a comparison of the number of off-road vehicles registered in the towns of Essex County to the number of horses reported as stabled. Then, for example, if it were to turn out that the numbers were about the same, the exclusive use of those trails could be evenly split between horseback riders and vehicle drivers. If it turns out that one group is larger than the other, then the larger could be assigned a proportionally greater number of days of exclusive use.

Of course, if the state decides that the social cost of subsidizing the use of off-road vehicles is too great because of the addition they make to air and noise pollution, then they could be banned from public lands altogether.

Edmund Traverso
Ipswich

How about this: We all just hike

Well to be honest, I have mixed feelings about the bike ban. The problem isn't the ATVs themselves, but the lack of land for them. Maybe as part of the permitting, there should be some money set aside for land acquisition.

As for the horses, well they are far from benign as well. They do cause soil erosion, leave large amounts of manure, and can be a hazard to those people walking or riding on the trails.

If the habitat is that critical, then no one -- including the horseback riders -- should be allowed to use it. If people who ride horses and ATVs can't get along, then maybe they should hike like the rest of us.

Steven Bonavita
Fitchburg

DCR is just following law

It's not just horse riders who find off-road vehicle (ORV) use in public forests obnoxious. The Department of Conservation and Recreation has documented that ORV use is the single most contentious concern among all park users in the Commonwealth.

The main reason is simple: Noise!

Noise levels permeate wide zones on each side of a ORV path, meaning it can accurately be said that ORV use on public trails is the only trail activity that completely drives away all other trail users.

The effect of ORV noise, when combined with pollution, as well as danger and trail destruction associated with use of off-road vehicles on forest trails, is so onerous that traditional park visitors will refrain from using former hiking trails.

Once ORV use begins, forest trails cease to be shared-use trails.

By refusing to allow ORV users to degrade forest lands, DCR is showing its responsiveness to the section of Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 132, Section 40, which states: "... the public welfare requires the rehabilitation, maintenance, and protection of forest lands for the purpose of conserving water, preventing floods and soil erosion, improving the conditions for wildlife and recreation, protecting and improving air and water quality . . ."

Mike Ryan
Melrose Executive director, Friends of the Middlesex Fells Reservation

Ban will mean illegal riding

Now that the state has closed Georgetown-Rowley State Park, there will be more illegal riding. And that will mean more people getting hurt.

The horse people don't have to register their horses. I have been to the park many times and seen only a couple of horses, and we did stop and turn our engines off. We pay a lot of money to register our all-terrain vehicles (ATVs), and the money should go to the upkeep of the parks we all ride in. The horse people don't pay a dime to use the parks.

The only riding now is in the western part of the state, which is over two hours away, or other states (New Hampshire, Maine). Then you have to pay for their registation.

When we ride the state parks, we clean the trails for everyone to enjoy. They should not close the state park, or they should open another state park -- of which there are many -- also closed to ATVs.

The people that mountain bike -- they don't pay for registration, either -- and ride horses will always complain about the dirt bikes and ATVs.

David Haumann
Randolph

Let ORV riders work with others

I just read the article that talks about the closing of Georgetown-Rowley State Forest. I am a resident of Webster and am 39 years old and an ATV enthusiast. I can say I am not surprised by this closing based upon the past negative press the ORV society is getting. We constantly read about complaints of illegal riding and noise pollution caused by the vehicles.

The reason there is an increase in the complaints is the ever-increasing lack of legal riding areas for us to enjoy. I have a son and daughter who share the same passion and desire to ride as I do. By continually pushing us out and not allowing us ample areas to ride, the inevitable occurrence of illegal riding and increased cost of law enforcement will occur.

I understand we all need a place to go. The horseback riders, hikers, mountain bikers, all need an area to enjoy. Instead of closing out ORV enthusiasts to accessible land, give us the opportunity to work with the communities and political groups to come to a mutual agreement.

Thom P. McNally
Webster