Andrew Walters, worried about the environment and integrity in local government, smells something fishy. Chris Gamache, chief of the Bureau of Trails, says go ahead, take a whiff. His agency smells fine, thank you.

And so the battle lines have been drawn, a muddled fight concerning wildlife, soil, conflict of interest and ATV playtime that has warriors in both camps fired up. ATV supporters want to ride rail trails like they used to, saying they pay their licensing fees, and it's unfair to portray them as noise polluters who don't care about the environment.

Opponents, led by Walters, say the big, fast-moving tires on ATVs rip up the soil, causing erosion and disturbing aquatic life in nearby lakes, rivers and streams. He documents that the Bureau of Trails knew ATVs were not permitted on federally funded land, yet tried to circumvent the law until the feds last month spelled out "No" in clearer language. This led the Bureau to post an internet message banning ATVs from the trails.

And Walters complains that the Bureau opened these trails, legal for snowmobiles, because the $54 registration fee helps pay bureau salaries. He has a problem with this concept. "The fundamental problem is the salaries of the people who are in charge of protecting your public lands are paid with special interest ATV money," said Walters, founder of atvwatch.com. "It's an obvious problem. What do we expect when Chris Gamache from the Bureau of Trails is paid by motorized registration fees, and over and over and over he goes before the Legislature and lobbies on behalf of ATV interests?"

Walters is the driving force behind this fight, the face of those who believe they're simply fighting for justice, for what's right. In fact, when Gamache was presented with information counter to his stance, his response, in a flash, was, "You have been talking to Mr. Walters, haven't you?"  Yes.

Walters and Gamache agree on certain points, mainly general history. The state received federal funding in 1995 to help purchase abandoned railroad corridors, to be used for pedestrian activities. Snowmobiles were included in the package. Three years later, the Bureau opened the trails to ATVs, categorizing them as snowmobiles. ATVs rode on 160 miles of the recreational trails purchased with federal money.

Slowly, environmentalists, snowmobile lovers, bird watchers, champions of chipmunks and Walters, who lives in Fitzwilliam, near Keene, noticed what they believed to be a glitch in policymaking. Bureau salaries depend on snowmobile and ATV licensing fees, so, Walters reasoned, the bureau pushed for ATV use on forbidden land for obvious reasons. Snuck it through the backdoor, so to speak.

"They figured, 'You know what, we think we can put ATVs on these rails and call them snowmobiles,' " Walters said. " 'And the longer we can get away with it, we'll establish a precedent.' If nobody forces the issue for years, ultimately it's going to become de facto."

Gamache was quick to respond this week. "Many states choose that they will govern the recreation themselves, and we happen to be the entity of New Hampshire that does that. It's fair to say we're told that we should develop trails for them and we take pride in doing the best job we can, and so we're going to try to find places for people to recreate with ATVs and snowmobiles, but we also work for the non-motorized user who currently pays nothing into any system whatsoever."

The battle continued, pushed by Walters, who began turning up the heat over the last year after chipping away at the issue since 2004. He called the Federal Highway Administration in Washington, wondering if, perhaps, he was wrong. Maybe ATVs were permitted on the land in question. "I asked, 'What's the deal,' " Walters said. " 'No, ATVs are not allowed on the rail trails, only snowmobiles.' I said, 'Come on, isn't it the same thing?' He said, 'What did you not understand about what I just said.' "

Next, the Department of Resources and Economic Development, which oversees the bureau, sprang into action. DRED Commissioner George Bald sought a waiver from the feds last year, claiming snowmobiles were loosely defined. Bald was unavailable for comment. But Gamache said the state law was unclear.

"New Hampshire did not have a state law saying that this is a snowmobile," Gamache said. "We had a snow traveling vehicle, and ATVs met the definition. . . . It wasn't until after 2006 that someone said, 'Wait a minute, things have changed here, we don't think you guys are being consistent anymore.' We asked (the Federal Highway Administration) for a waiver. . . . Ultimately they came back, saying you need to change it."

But Walters believes DRED and the bureau knew all along that ATVs were not kosher. He cites a letter written by DRED to the Troy police department 13 years ago. The police apparently had sent a letter to DRED seeking to learn which machines could ride the rail trails and which could not. DRED's response, in part, read, "The answer to your question regarding the use of ATVs on the Cheshire Branch is very clear-cut. . . . Federal guidelines dictate that no OHRV (off highway recreational vehicles), other than snowmobiles in winter, are to be operated upon the corridor."

"In this case," Walters said, "there were very clear rules attached." Walters took it further, citing DRED's administrative rules on the definition of a snowmobile prior to 2006 as "any vehicle propelled by mechanical power that is designed to travel over ice and snow supported in part by skis, belts or cleats."  ATVs, we all know, have wheels.

Meanwhile, letters continue to pour into the Monitor from angry ATV riders, who, because of a recent editorial and column, claim they've been depicted as uncaring rule breakers. Many clean up the beer and soda cans after riding, the letters say. They care about the environment. They raise money for, and donate food to, charitable organizations.

Wrote Stephen D'Arrigo, treasurer of the New Durham Valley ATV Club, "I would like to let you know that vast majority of motorized vehicle enthusiasts are families, tradesmen and professionals. . . . We are civic minded persons who take great pride in working to protect our outdoor resources which New Hampshire has a great abundance of."

This, Walters reasons, is comparing apples and oranges. Are ATV riders, generally speaking, good people? Sure. Does that, however, relate to soil erosion, bureau salaries based on licensing fees, and concerns over policy making?  Walters says no.

"We should not have this issue," he said. "No other state department would have the nerve to try to violate the laws that are so clear were it not for their salaries being paid with special interest money. That's where the whole problem is."