Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 26

Thread: First Indications of ATV Corona Virus imits in NH

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Gorham NH
    Posts
    6,231

    First Indications of ATV Corona Virus imits in NH

    The ATV tourist trade is big in Northern NH. The southern border is RT 2 so most hikers working on the 4Ks rarely encounter how big things are except for those heading to Cabot. Its become the "800 pound gorilla" that calls the shots in most of the towns north of RT2. The trails are currently closed for mud season but soon will be open. To date there was little guidance on the impact of CV-19 on how to handle the major influx of mostly southern New England ATVers. I saw this article today on the current plans http://www.nhfrontpage.com/Articles-...en-May-23.html Unlike Maine and VT, NHs 14 days quarantine is advisory not mandatory. Public campgrounds are currently NH residents only.

    NH already allows takeout but will be allowing restaurants to open seating on a limited basis soon but the four largest restaurants in Gorham, Yokohama, Js, Mr Pizza and the Chinese buffet are all closed. That means the remaining restaurants are going to be doing great business unless the other ones reopen.

    Maine just today announced that rural counties will be able to reopen the tourist industry within the next two weeks. They still have the mandatory 14 day quarantine but maybe Maine folks will be able to move to visit Baxter soon.

  2. #2
    Senior Member DayTrip's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Woodstock, CT
    Posts
    2,771
    Quote Originally Posted by peakbagger View Post
    . They still have the mandatory 14 day quarantine but maybe Maine folks will be able to move to visit Baxter soon.
    I thought Baxter was closed until July 1st (for practical purposes - no campgrounds, no above treeline, no Katahdin or Traveler)? I believe that is what the Baxter website said. I was scrolling through the reservation system the other day and it is wide open. I'm hoping to go up the last week in AUG and was looking to find some indication. I even started a reservation, put my name in (I'm in the system) and even with my CT address it not prevent me from continuing. Hopefully I can get up there. Anyway, sorry for the instantaneous thread drift....

    My original thought was that ATV'ing should certainly be an allowed activity - helmets with face guards, gloves, moving air, outside, etc. The issue of everyone converging on Gorham I guess will be the hurdle - hotels, food, etc. Hopefully they will figure out something. Gorham has enough off and on economic challenges over the years. They don't need to take any more hits. I can't imagine a Gorham without Mr Pizza in it.
    NH 48 4k: 48/48; NH W48k: 48/48; ME 4k: 2/14; VT 4k: 1/5; ADK 46: 6/46; Cat 3.5k 10/35

  3. #3
    Senior Member Barkingcat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Верхоянский хребет
    Posts
    1,092
    Quote Originally Posted by peakbagger View Post
    I saw this article today on the current plans http://www.nhfrontpage.com/Articles-...en-May-23.html Unlike Maine and VT, NHs 14 days quarantine is advisory not mandatory. Public campgrounds are currently NH residents only.
    The article indicates that Jericho Mountain State Park will open to NH residents only on May 23 -- I wonder: does NH alone generate much ATV use, and when will out-of-state ATV-ers be encouraged to visit?

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Gorham NH
    Posts
    6,231
    IMHO , yes there are a lot of folks in Southern NH that use the trails up north. Jericho lake really doesnt have that many campsites and expect southern NH folks will easily fill them. One of the points of contention between NH ATVers and the state was that the registration surcharge for acquiring local trail access for ATVS was represented that the acquisitions would be local but when the clearcut and significantly abused Jericho Tract came up for sale by JR Dillon logging, Berlin and the general area was really hurting with the loss of the pulp mill. One of the possible bones sent up north by the state was the future of a tourist based economy and the state spent the entire ATV trail fund as a downpayment and paid the rest out of subsequent surcharges. Berlin threw in the mostly abandoned park facilities around the lake to the state for their share. Southern NH ATVers were not happy with this deal initially but given the subsequent expansion into Ride the Wilds trail network which is far larger than the Jericho State park system I expect there are few who complain anymore.

    I also expect there is a "wink wink nudge" concept going on in that NH state government realizes that there are many folks from outside the state that have either second homes or local rentals (reportedly Air B&B owners who are not supposed to list properties are just going direct with prior guests). The state does not have a mandatory 14 day quarantine so if people go against the advisory rules there is nothing stopping them (the same applies to hikers and other recreational activities not tied to businesses). This allows the local businesses to get some revenue until the state can open up southern NH which is is basically held hostage by Mass. If you look at the Maine governors announcement yesterday she finally acknowledged that there are a few population dense (for Maine) counties that have community transmission plus a large number of elderly homes that are the vast majority of the cases, therefore she will allow the rural counties with low static numbers to reopen faster for in state residents. These Maine counties are all conveniently just bit far for Mass daytripper (although Oxford is close), unlike Coos county which also has had few cases and no increases.

    The claim when the deal went through was the state paid Dillon more per acre than he paid for the land prior to clearcutting it and extracting gravel from it. It will be long time before there are commercial harvests from the property and given the states normal approach of not doing pre-commercial thinning, its going to be natural regeneration for better or worst.

  5. #5
    Senior Member CaptCaper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    AHH....SKYLINE
    Posts
    554
    We don't ATV but I'm glad to see Gorham is helping open up ATV use this season. I'm sure it won't be a normal season on influx but Gorham residents are big boys as well as ATV people and will work it out for a fun family season for all who come. Not safe? really.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	95781835_3051984071544142_8727249055844925440_n.jpg 
Views:	139 
Size:	103.5 KB 
ID:	6435  

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Gorham NH
    Posts
    6,231
    The Jericho ATV festival just got canceled. With respect to the thumbnail, I expect the theory is folks need to eat as its essential, they don't (unless homeless) need to camp.

  7. #7
    Senior Member TJsName's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    'Springtime' on the Carters (Tamworth, NH)
    Posts
    2,074
    Quote Originally Posted by CaptCaper View Post
    We don't ATV but I'm glad to see Gorham is helping open up ATV use this season. I'm sure it won't be a normal season on influx but Gorham residents are big boys as well as ATV people and will work it out for a fun family season for all who come. Not safe? really.
    The thumbnail image conflates 'safe' with 'essential'. Of course, the imagine isn't trying to make a rational argument, it's just meant to trigger people who have already come to the same type of conclusion, for better of for worse.
    | 64.5% W48: 19/48
    Trail Adopter of the Guinea Pond Trail

  8. #8
    Senior Member DayTrip's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Woodstock, CT
    Posts
    2,771
    Quote Originally Posted by TJsName View Post
    The thumbnail image conflates 'safe' with 'essential'. Of course, the imagine isn't trying to make a rational argument, it's just meant to trigger people who have already come to the same type of conclusion, for better of for worse.
    Why do the two concepts have to be tied together? If something can be done safely right now who cares what its relevance is to other parts of life? If it's safe then...uh... it's safe. It's worth is irrelevant. I'm not sure why everyone is so wildly obsessed with suppressing every non-essential activity on the planet exclusively because it is not essential. It would be nice if we could all get out of our black or white, all or nothing, one size fits all mentality on this stuff. (I make this point generically, not in the context of the ATV event).
    NH 48 4k: 48/48; NH W48k: 48/48; ME 4k: 2/14; VT 4k: 1/5; ADK 46: 6/46; Cat 3.5k 10/35

  9. #9
    Senior Member TJsName's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    'Springtime' on the Carters (Tamworth, NH)
    Posts
    2,074
    Quote Originally Posted by DayTrip View Post
    Why do the two concepts have to be tied together? If something can be done safely right now who cares what its relevance is to other parts of life? If it's safe then...uh... it's safe. It's worth is irrelevant. I'm not sure why everyone is so wildly obsessed with suppressing every non-essential activity on the planet exclusively because it is not essential. It would be nice if we could all get out of our black or white, all or nothing, one size fits all mentality on this stuff. (I make this point generically, not in the context of the ATV event).
    Because of math. Our activities do not happen in a vacuum. Every one we interact with creates a potential exchange point if one of the parties is infected. Reducing those interactions to only the essential ones is our best tool to slow the spread right now. But you're right, it's not black and white - there is a whole gamut of risk for every individual activity. Sitting in a campsite with members of your household? Yeah, very low risk right there. Taking the same household shopping for groceries, or out to dinner? Or sharing the bathroom facilities at the campground?

    Let's say this is the day after one of the family members was unknowingly exposed in their local town. Now the infection has a chance to spread to everyone at the campground, including the staff who live in that community. So sure, sitting around the fire is safe, but we can't ignore all the activities the are linked to it. And without better testing, the best we can do is avoid the non-essential activities.

    I think people should be annoyed at this, but not because it's needless, but because it's still needed.
    | 64.5% W48: 19/48
    Trail Adopter of the Guinea Pond Trail

  10. #10
    Senior Member DayTrip's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Woodstock, CT
    Posts
    2,771
    Quote Originally Posted by TJsName View Post
    Because of math. Our activities do not happen in a vacuum. Every one we interact with creates a potential exchange point if one of the parties is infected. Reducing those interactions to only the essential ones is our best tool to slow the spread right now. But you're right, it's not black and white - there is a whole gamut of risk for every individual activity. Sitting in a campsite with members of your household? Yeah, very low risk right there. Taking the same household shopping for groceries, or out to dinner? Or sharing the bathroom facilities at the campground?

    Let's say this is the day after one of the family members was unknowingly exposed in their local town. Now the infection has a chance to spread to everyone at the campground, including the staff who live in that community. So sure, sitting around the fire is safe, but we can't ignore all the activities the are linked to it. And without better testing, the best we can do is avoid the non-essential activities.

    I think people should be annoyed at this, but not because it's needless, but because it's still needed.
    With all due respect your reply makes no sense. You have taken a SAFE activity (sitting alone in a camp site), then assumed additional activities which are UNSAFE (going to buy groceries or out to dinner) and then determined that therefore sitting alone in my camp site is now UNSAFE and cannot be allowed. You can over analyze it however you'd like. There can be dozens of SAFE activities and dozens of UNSAFE activities existing together on your risk spectrum that don't automatically have to interact together. If you're saying that because there are still UNSAFE things we could do we need to continue to not do SAFE things too I'd say that is ridiculous. And if you are saying there are no SAFE activities possible right now I would also say that is ridiculous.
    NH 48 4k: 48/48; NH W48k: 48/48; ME 4k: 2/14; VT 4k: 1/5; ADK 46: 6/46; Cat 3.5k 10/35

  11. #11
    Senior Member TJsName's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    'Springtime' on the Carters (Tamworth, NH)
    Posts
    2,074
    Quote Originally Posted by DayTrip View Post
    With all due respect your reply makes no sense. You have taken a SAFE activity (sitting alone in a camp site), then assumed additional activities which are UNSAFE (going to buy groceries or out to dinner) and then determined that therefore sitting alone in my camp site is now UNSAFE and cannot be allowed. You can over analyze it however you'd like. There can be dozens of SAFE activities and dozens of UNSAFE activities existing together on your risk spectrum that don't automatically have to interact together. If you're saying that because there are still UNSAFE things we could do we need to continue to not do SAFE things too I'd say that is ridiculous. And if you are saying there are no SAFE activities possible right now I would also say that is ridiculous.
    My apologies if my point is not clear. As an exercise, I would ask you to consider all of the activities associated with a "family camping trip". Let's just say it's a family of four coming up from Connecticut for a week-long trip. What are all the logistical and practical activities associated with that trip? My point is, We can't just cherry pick the safer activities because all of the activities are associated with the trip. There are things people can do to reduce the unsafe activities (bring all of their own food from home) but there are other activities that are harder to account for (such as going to the bathroom/showering). And the biggest issue is what does the family do with all of their spare time? Do they go to Storyland or Santa's Village? Ride the Cog? I doubt that they would sit around there campsite for a week and then go home.

    Hope that makes more sense, but happy to clarify anything!
    | 64.5% W48: 19/48
    Trail Adopter of the Guinea Pond Trail

  12. #12
    Senior Member Mike P.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Colchester, CT
    Posts
    2,925
    Because I can't quote both DayTrip and TJ.....

    A family likely does some of those activities, depending on age. Not every family is cookie cutter & they change. Yes I did storyland with my kids when they were under 10.

    Today, my son & I would come up & do all we could to avoid all tourist like activities. We'd hike, eat, sleep repeat. We both could survive on a week's worth of pasta, a weeks worth of bagels & trail lunches. Showers could be skipped for swimming in a stream, like we do on the Allagash, which only leaves the few port-a-let visits if the camper didn't have a toilet or water hook-up available. (that actually is his diet in the Allagash)

    What is interesting is what will happen as time passes. Bars were filled to capacity in WI after the Supreme Court of WI decided the Governor's stay at home order was unconstitutional. No one wearing a mask. I don't think anyone is thinking that's safe, but when people get pushed to far, they rebel. I've heard no mention yet of a Governor using the National Guard or Police to use force to keep citizens from gambling with their lives & the lives of others.

    As we've heard from trail condition reports, cars from out of state continue to visit trailheads. I would guess we've all seen behavior in our towns that we find puzzling, whether it's people not wearing masks or unable to follow an arrow in a store. We expect rules to keep us "all" safe, while I want to avoid almost all human contact when I visit NH, I know most visitors will come in contact with others.
    Have fun & be safe
    Mike P.

  13. #13
    Moderator bikehikeskifish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    5,739
    Quote Originally Posted by DayTrip View Post
    With all due respect
    Quote Originally Posted by TJsName View Post
    My apologies if my point is not clear.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike P. View Post
    Because I can't quote both DayTrip and TJ.....
    Of course you can! See that little "+ icon down to the right... Edit Post, Reply, Reply With Quote, and "+ -- hit the "+ for every post you want to quote and then you can hit Reply With quote (or Reply To Thread) to include all the quotes.

    Tim
    Last edited by bikehikeskifish; 05-14-2020 at 12:31 PM.
    Bike, Hike, Ski, Sleep. Eat, Fish, Repeat.

  14. #14
    Senior Member DayTrip's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Woodstock, CT
    Posts
    2,771
    Quote Originally Posted by TJsName View Post
    My apologies if my point is not clear. As an exercise, I would ask you to consider all of the activities associated with a "family camping trip". Let's just say it's a family of four coming up from Connecticut for a week-long trip. What are all the logistical and practical activities associated with that trip? My point is, We can't just cherry pick the safer activities because all of the activities are associated with the trip. There are things people can do to reduce the unsafe activities (bring all of their own food from home) but there are other activities that are harder to account for (such as going to the bathroom/showering). And the biggest issue is what does the family do with all of their spare time? Do they go to Storyland or Santa's Village? Ride the Cog? I doubt that they would sit around there campsite for a week and then go home.

    Hope that makes more sense, but happy to clarify anything!
    I understand your point perfectly. You do not understand my point. All I am saying is that SAFE/UNSAFE has nothing to do with ESSENTIAL/NON ESSENTIAL. If after analyzing all the variables in a given activity we determine that Activity A has a 99% chance of a favorable outcome and Activity B has a 99% chance of a favorable outcome then Activity A has the same risk/level of safety as Activity B and either choice is "equal". The actual activity is irrelevant.

    Just because Activity A might be "non essential" (such as playing a round of golf at an out of state golf course or hiking a mountain 3 hours away) does not suddenly make it riskier/more dangerous/LESS SAFE just because Activity B is an "essential" activity (which might be going to my local grocery store and spending an hour getting food and essentials). If the probability of a favorable outcome is the same, the activities are "equal" in terms of the risk.

    I would further say that there are many "non-essential" activities that have a significantly higher probability of a favorable outcome (i.e. are SAFER) than many "essential" activities. In my opinion I am taking far less risk to myself or others driving 2 hours to go for a hike, encountering a minimal amount of people (at a 6' distance), possibly stopping for gas and driving home versus going to the Price Chopper in my local town to get groceries, touching door handles, produce, groceries, the ATM buttons and all while hundreds of people with varying levels of concern, health status and hygiene (i.e. some have PPE and some don't) walk around shopping, and while counting on low income and tired workers to maintain a standard of sanitation and hygiene that prevents transmission. And then I would further say that the consequences of an unfavorable outcome would also be worse in the above "essential" activity versus the "non essential" hike. If I am sick or contagious I am likely to impact far more people in the grocery store than I am maybe brushing up against someone on the trail or possibly touching the door handle of an outhouse door. I impact far more people in the grocery store than I do out in the woods.

    So in my opinion, we are deeming things as "SAFE" because they are "essential" when in fact they are far riskier and have more severe consequences than many non-essential activities. But of course we need to eat, etc so we are engaging in these higher risk activities anyway because we have to in order to survive. And then we are further perpetuating that distorted position by calling these "SAFE" activities dangerous and irresponsible, which in many cases they are clearly not. I think that is the source of what you labeled as "irritation" by certain people (i.e. me).

    Your statements and "exercise" are changing the premise of what I am saying. You're adding Activity C, Activity D, etc to my Activity A, which alters the variables and the probability of a favorable outcome and is an entirely different conversation and analysis. Obviously the things you mentioned add risk. To reiterate my point, SAFE/UNSAFE is not a product of ESSENTIAL/NON ESSENTIAL. It is a product of all the risk factors that go into said activity. A lightning strike doesn't care if I'm on my way to the grocery store or a strip club, the drunk driver who plows into my car didn't do so because I just snuck in 9 holes at a golf course across the state line, and COVID 19 doesn't care if I'm a nurse giving someone kidney dialysis or making out with a girl I just met at the beach. Risk is risk. Intent is irrelevant.
    NH 48 4k: 48/48; NH W48k: 48/48; ME 4k: 2/14; VT 4k: 1/5; ADK 46: 6/46; Cat 3.5k 10/35

  15. #15
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike P. View Post
    Because I can't quote both DayTrip and TJ.....

    A family likely does some of those activities, depending on age. Not every family is cookie cutter & they change. Yes I did storyland with my kids when they were under 10.

    Today, my son & I would come up & do all we could to avoid all tourist like activities. We'd hike, eat, sleep repeat. We both could survive on a week's worth of pasta, a weeks worth of bagels & trail lunches. Showers could be skipped for swimming in a stream, like we do on the Allagash, which only leaves the few port-a-let visits if the camper didn't have a toilet or water hook-up available. (that actually is his diet in the Allagash)

    What is interesting is what will happen as time passes. Bars were filled to capacity in WI after the Supreme Court of WI decided the Governor's stay at home order was unconstitutional. No one wearing a mask. I don't think anyone is thinking that's safe, but when people get pushed to far, they rebel. I've heard no mention yet of a Governor using the National Guard or Police to use force to keep citizens from gambling with their lives & the lives of others.

    As we've heard from trail condition reports, cars from out of state continue to visit trailheads. I would guess we've all seen behavior in our towns that we find puzzling, whether it's people not wearing masks or unable to follow an arrow in a store. We expect rules to keep us "all" safe, while I want to avoid almost all human contact when I visit NH, I know most visitors will come in contact with others.
    As long as your trip proceeds on the happy path that you describe you're right - you are relatively safe (a little boring and maybe tedious avoiding people, but safe) It's when the unexpected occurs - someone gets sick/injured, the car breaks down - that all of a sudden you are thrown into an interaction with the local community. No natter how great you think your car is or what a skilled healthy hiker you are - statistically something is going to happen if you roll the dice enough.

Similar Threads

  1. New Virus Isolated
    By Tom Rankin in forum General Backcountry
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 05-12-2006, 07:51 AM
  2. West Nile Virus
    By Clown in forum General Backcountry
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 09-16-2005, 05:02 PM
  3. Virus infected or not?
    By paul ron in forum Site Help
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 05-13-2005, 06:33 PM
  4. Nat. Geo. TOPO! virus attack
    By buddy in forum General Backcountry
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-06-2005, 02:52 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •