Important Reading Item

[Benny]

Surface tension, WHERE in this thread have I called anyone posting here an one-who-thinks-I-am-silly???I called those ATV rider's you spoke of idiots not anyone who has posted here!

And haven't I been preaching all along about the use of the mine areas??? If I were riding down a trail and you started yelling at me for passing you, you better be one big person.I will stop and confront you, as I have just as much right to ride,walk, crawl, skip or even horse back ride down that trail.It was not any money from your lisence or tax's on ATV'S,or any hard work to build the trail that came from you to be the only one who can walk it.The issue of this thread was not about your private grouse trail, it is about the errosion and soil compaction caused by the ATV traveling in consentrated popular areas.
As for the foot walkers who have had bad experiances with other hunters using the ATV to get ahead of them, I for one would not stop close enough to disrupt the hunt for you.And I appolagize to you on behalf of the rest of us ATV riders that would respect your right to hunt that area.But don't think that some one is tring to mess up your hunt just because they went by you, maybe they were headed to another area or trail to hunt.It may have been the only way to legaly travel to their faverite spot and simply pased you to get there.Now if they stop a few hundread or feet for that mater to hunt the same exact spot you are headed to, then you have a very good reason to CHEW them out.They were and are the one-who-thinks-I-am-silly for tring to screw things up for everone.

Spike, you are right on the money for the idea of a member's funded trail.Problem would be the DNR would not allow it as they would have no say in it and couldn't tax it.
Plus there is to much private land to buy or get permission to cross.It comes back to the same thing, we need each other to get the problem fixed.Most of those mine areas are state owned now so our legeslators could easily set aside some areas for ATV's to rip around in.I think the Gilbert area was one of the mine areas, but not sure where it is exactly.I know there is an area by Pengilly, Minn. that has miles of area to ride and there is no population of any magnatude that would find the noise offensive.Sure there would be a few who would say they don't like it, there always will be.They help keep the rest of us in check.
One idea I had to fund the trail and enforcement was to switch to a bi annual or even a yearly regestration at a little cheaper rate so the not so wealthy famillys can aford to do it, use that money to fund the projects.Also maybe a user fee on the ride parks,I would gladly pay a resonable fee to ride for the day.
The ATV clubs could pose a surcharge on their members that don't pitch in to rebuild a trail, that money could be funneled to a fund to help enforcement.
Well enough for now.
Benny

P.S I won't be responding to any more negative posts here as I believe it will cause a greater riff between the people we need to bring together.

[This message has been edited by Benny (edited 03-07-2002).]

[SpikeRoberts]

"If there's such a high demand for ATV use opportunities, why aren't there more private outlets? I know people would pay money to ride."

That's a great observation/question Bornofice -- I've wondered it myself on occasion. I think you're onto something concerning the insurance issues though.

I too agree that this has been a very interesting thread. Like I mentioned in an earlier post, the discussions here has been very civilized for the most part and I think I've made some friends (virtually friends anyway) even if we don't agree on every detail. At the very least, I've come to respect a number of folks, have learned more about varying perspectives on the issue, and have gained an even deeper appreciation for this HSOforum.

Benny, I just wanted to point out that I wasn't suggesting privately funded trails but privately funded rehabilitation projects on public lands (but Bornofice did raise that as a question and as I said above it's an interesting take on the situation). I would hope (and believe it to be so) that any money that is going into trail development is coming from ATV registration fees not from general DNR funds.

[This message has been edited by SpikeRoberts (edited 03-07-2002).]

[Dave]

I'd still give ya a ride anytime ya need one, Spike

About those "private outlets" or private riding areas. Insurance IS a major factor. I spoke with the owner of Deep Creek Adventures in North Dakota this morning. I believe he has 8000 acres and doesn't rent ATVs. Riders can go there and rent cabins for the weekend and ride thou. He was told the ATVs must be used on a guided tour in order to get insurance. Liability issues are a big problem. I know McQuoids in Isle rents 'em. And, he knows Terry so he's gonna call him to find out the skinny on insurance.

Spike, you can probably triple your money if you leased your land to ATVers instead of a farmer...LOL

Looks like the DNR is making steps to a decent compromise/solution in a very short time. But, sounds like MRR is upset over the DNR's actions, still. I still say their mission is to ban machines with a motor.

Funding for enforcement coming from the ATV fund. Banning cross country travel. Limted travel, I think up in your neck of the woods Spike.

I enjoy talking about ATVs. Even debating I guess. And, I don't think I'm absurd or out of "reality" on my reasoning. Like I said, people do things everyday to tick people off about something. Everyone can enjoy the outdoors and we're only on earth for a short time.

[This message has been edited by Dave (edited 03-07-2002).]

[Benny]

Spike , I feel for that Elk rancher.It is a very sad fact that some people can't stay off private land.I would be all for the CO's to arrest anyone that traspassed and harrased the Elk in any way.I would be there to do some CHEWING out of my own if I see any one crossing into posted land and causing the animals to bolt.
I saw a young bull moose run through a 5 stran barbwire fence after being spooked, poor animal was pretty tore up but did live.
Maybe that rancher could call one of the ATV clubs and ask them for some support as in buying and hanging some large signs at every posible inlet to his property.I am sure he has signs now, but if a few clubs put the word out in their rank and file to help this guy out they would at least turn some of the bad apples in.
If your ever down in the north metro area, give me a ring(email for number if you wish).I will buy you a coffee or a beer if you like.
Thanks, Benny

[This message has been edited by Benny (edited 03-07-2002).]

[SpikeRoberts]

"Looks like the DNR is making steps to a decent compromise/solution in a very short time."

They had the DNR Commish on MPR this morning He thinks they have a plan but doesn't think he can sell it to the legislature -- too much resistance from the ATV industry lobbyists on cutting out the cross country stuff was his general drift. Sounds like there's some interference from both ends of the spectrum when it comes to getting some better policy in place. Maybe they need us to take care of it for them -- LOL

[Dave]

All-Terrain Vehicle Association of Minnesota Advocates
Off-Trail Travel Restrictions

The All-Terrain Vehicle Association of Minnesota (ATVAM), joined by two other off-highway vehicle (OHV) groups, today advocated an amendment to restrict off-trail travel of ATV’s, dirt bikes, and 4x4 vehicles to a trails only policy. The amendment, authored by Rep. Tom Hackbarth to House File 2970 in the House Environment Finance Committee, was adopted and became part of the $1.2 million dollar OHV funding bill.

The amendment requires the commissioner of DNR to amend the present forest rules to only allow OHVs on forest roads and trails in managed forest. This forest rule language was originally proposed by the DNR but deleted in the 2000 legislative session.

In addition to the off-trail travel restrictions, the House bill will provide for an additional three conservation officers dedicated to OHV enforcement and provides for five technicians and nine seasonal workers to assist with the monitoring and maintenance of OHV trails. An environmental review specialist is also included to assist with the environmental review process.

Sonia Bartz, president of ATVAM said, "Our goal as ATVers is to develop a quality trail system, well maintained and properly enforced, that will provide a good riding experience for those who want to recreate on ATVs. We can accomplish that goal in an environmentally friendly manner, and be a good neighbor with the other users of our public lands".

Both House File 2970 and Senate File 3010, its companion file authored by Sen. LeRoy Stumpf, have been sent to their respective floors for final action.

[CorynTracySellHomes]

WOW! This has been an interesting subject to say the least! I do own an atv, and snowmobiles and I think the point Bornofice is trying to make is that if we as sportsmen (I know some of your views on what a sportsmen is, but, I tend to believe just from the few people I have met and talked to on FishingMinnesota that the majority of the people waying in here are sportsmen!) With that being said what we need to do is get a figurehead to support all outdoor recreation. We as Sportsmen are splintered apart by special Interest groups. We have fishing groups, hunting groups, the NRA, snowmobile clubs, etc. etc.
What we need to do is to somehow, create some type of alliance where we as sportsmen are all represented. The Antis are very organised and I am not trying to sound like an alarmist but if we do not all come together we will all be slowly split up and are rights will be in jeopardy!
Look at are school systems, They preach that animals have almost human like charachteristics, look at the statistics on the amount of kids being introduced to the outdoors! Who is going to defend these outdoor pursuits?
I know that I have gotten off the subject here but we all need to find some common ground, and join in to protect are rights! The Anti's have lobbyists fighting on there side, we do have the NRA lobbying to protect are rights, but they tend to be a one issue organization. I do not know how we can get all of our interests protected under one umbrella but I think we should try and compromise for the better good, before we lose more and more of our outdoor interests!

Cory Frantzick

------------------
Visit us on the web at www.Athomeonthelake.com

[Benny]

Amen Cory, great to have you on board this thread.
Benny

[Guest]

Ok, I haven't been involved in this forum for a couple of days but I just got a chance to catch up. From what I have seen this has been very productive! This needs to be shown to some figures (Legislatures, DNR, heck maybe even MRR! LOL!! Although they don't need the internet address or we'll never get rid of them)
So anyhow I was readin' along and I had an idea, I think it is worth throwing out there.

How about an sticker for riding state trails? Sort of like a stud sticker for snowmobiles or a parking permit for state parks. If you ride state trails, you need a sticker. I believe that this would help generate extra funds for trail preservation, creation, and repair, and everyone has already said they would pay for riding a day. Well, why not just make it a sticker for a year? If we added this to the funds from the ATV registration we would be much more able to efficiently maintain our trails. Heck depending on funds from this sticker the DNR could possibly even hire another CO or 2 to enforce just ATV's. So what are everyones thoughts ?

[SpikeRoberts]

Mr. Fisherman,
I think you've got a good point. Enforcement is the one big problem I see with almost any plan. Even the best laid plan is no good if the DNR doesn't have the manpower to enforce it. If you're able to pay thousands of dollars for a ride, what's a few more bucks???

[Dave]

I'm not against paying more but PLEASE, no more stickers...LOL Just raise the registration fee some if needed. I don't think that'll do it thou. Take a look already, that they're adding 3 CO's and we still hear the moaning. Guys like John Reynolds of MRR wouldn't be happy if every forest had a CO riding all day ticketing.

[Surface Tension]

Im all for desiganted trails. Heres some questions to chew on. We have a trail system now for winter use. Much of it crosses privite land. Are any of you in a snowmobile club and if so tell your forum members how dificult it is to get landowner's to allow a trail through there property. Mind you this is a winter trail and there is very little damage.
Who is going to pay for this new trail? How are you going to get CO's out there to patrol a trail when they are under staffed now. The DNR does a poor job enforceing snowmoile's, what is it going to do differnatly to enforce ATV's?
Most of the snowmobile trails we have were made and mantained by local snowmobile clubs. It wasnt easy but with dedication and a lot of work they did it.
Its time for ATVer's to do the same.

[Dave]

I'm thinkin', these COs get the cr*p kicked out of them all the time for something. From entering ice shelters, complaints from not enough of them for fishing, snowmobiling, hunting, boating, surveying, whatever. I feel sorry for those guys in a way. A lot of people are always complaining about them. Fact, we can't have a CO in every lake, on every corner of the trail, in every section of the woods. Do a comparison about, say, poaching, hunting or fishing. How much do you want your hunting or fishing fee to increase to eliminate that problem? And, even if we paid through the nose in licenses, the problem will still be there.

I don't think anyone has to tell how difficult it is to get permission for a trail on private property. When private ag land is not used during the winter for crops, I'd suspect it's easier, (I didn't say real easy) than when an ATV club's asking to have a trail during summer when crops are in. It's quite obvious where a trail can and can't go depending on the season.
As far as clubs building trails. How large is the snowmobile group now compared to the ATV group now. The snowmobile trail system didn't grow in a few years, it took many years. ATVs are basically a new recreation as a whole; only about 10 years old. The real boom in ATVs was about the last six years? ATV Clubs have done a tremendous amount of work for such a small group, in that short of time.

[Biggestfish]

Coryn. Amen. United we stand, divided we fall.

[Benny]

The sticker idea is great, but I have to agree that we don't need anymore stickers to fall off.A fee increse would be a good way to get the same thing accomplished and spread the cost over the whole ATV community.
As for the sled trails being built by the clubs, yes they were, but they raided ATV lisence funds to build many of them.This was before there were any trail systems for ATV's all the registration money went into the same fund as the sleds did for quit a few years early on.
I also see the ATV clubs tring to build a trail system, but the green people keep getting their views in the way.I think we all should send letters to Jessie and ask him to get Garber out of there, he is scared of his own shadow and won't step up to the plate and lead.He can't even deal with his staff with out tring to bully them .
How are the trail systems in Wisconsin set up? They don't seem to have the problems we are having here, they surely are not with out their's but we never here about them.
They seem to have a great trail system and a way to enforce the laws to.
Benny

[SpikeRoberts]

"How are the trail systems in Wisconsin set up? They don't seem to have the problems we are having here, they surely are not with out their's but we never here about them."

The differences of the early years of ATV trails in the Wisconson system and ours points to the real reason we're even having this debate now. Whereas WI initiated a policy that restricted use from trails and areas unless otherwise posted, MN did the opposite, opening all trails unless otherwise posted. Now we have to go back and "undo" what we'd done before -- this gives the appearance to too many people that the state is trying to take something away from them. If the MN state legislature had listened to the DNR biologists' concerns about environmental problems and had sought more public input in the early years BEFORE passing the "all-access" laws we would have been able to slowly develop and open areas in thoughtful ways and we probably wouldn't have so many pi**ed-off people, hunters, hikers, etc...

There is another feature of the WI laws that I like very much too. They require that ATVs display identification with a car-sized license plate on the back and the the license number painted in 2"- 3" letters on the fuel tank. It sure would make it easier to report irresponsible/illegal riding in MN if you could identify the vehicle. Even the threat that they might be identified might be enough to discourage illegal activity among a sizable portion of riders.

[Guest]

You see the reason I decided on an extra sticker instead of an overall fee hike is that we are gonna have a bunch of farmers and the like complain about how they don't use their ATV on state trails. I feel that that would cause support for extra fees to go down. Any thoughts?

[Dave]

Spike, I don't know about your WI registration information. I don't have time right now to check but the WI HSOforum said the registration stickers are placed on both sides of the fuel tank. I didn't see anything about a plate on back or numbers on the side.
I'll check more about it tonight or if you can give me the URL, I'd appreciate it.
Many of WI trails are dual snow and ATV trails also. They also have more trails than MN, so they're spread out.

[Guest]

I think atv's should be licensed the same way snowmobiles are. 'Nuff said!

[SpikeRoberts]

To say that WI has more trails is inaccurate. Yes, they have more designated trails than we do, but they do not have unlimited access to all roads and trails. If it's not designated in WI, you can not ride on it. If you place WI side-by-side with MN there are a lot more miles/acres open to MN riders.

AS for the registration -- my post was inaccurate as well. Dave was correct to write that it is registration stickers, not license numbers on the tank. I'm still trying to confirm/deny the plate on back.

In regards to the new DNR plan to add a few officers to payroll, the CO union says that it is "ineffective and dangerous." The rest of the plan doesn't really do anything to address areas besides the Moose Lake and Spider Lake areas either; I personally oppose it because it only changes the Foothills State Forest surrounding the Spider Lake Area from "open" to "limited" -- should change that staus to "closed" -- then the riders would have their area and the rest of us would have ours. No wonder the ATVAM is all for it -- doesn't restrict their access hardly at all. You'd think for all the press it got it would have some substance to it.

[Dave]

"To say that WI has more trails is inaccurate. Yes, they have more designated trails than we do, but they do not have unlimited access to all roads and trails."

I'd say that's because MN doesn't have enough designated trails, Spike. The whole 'cross country' riding scenerio just doesn't happen across the state. The unlimted access was given because there wasn't designated trails at the time. I don't know how muxh easier to explain that. The "unlimted access' from "wetlands" (not just some rain collected mud holes on the trails) probably should be tightened up a bit. I think that's the most problem you're concerned about. Riders just don't go rippin' across a forest. Too damaging of machine and rider.

I never did understand why someone has to register the machine when it'll be on private land either. But, I'm sure that's just to generate some cash like everything else.

Spike, safe to say you got the 48 page 'Record of Decison' about the Moose Walk trail from the DNR?

The way I read it, the negative comments were a majorty stating that it "seems" or it "could" or "possibly". Everything we do could possibly change something. It was interesting reading. The DNR gave a complete opinion on the comments also.

Do you really believe the DNR is out to destruct our resources?

[Benny]

I would be totaly opposed to "painting any thing besides the graphics I have on the tank now" Not to hide from anyone but I spent a lot of money to make my quad look like a show bike, and I will not paint numbers on it.I will and do however place a large plate on the back with the reg. number and the sticker we need now.I my be perswaded to place a sticker on the tank if I am allowed to fit it in the graphics skeem some how.
As to lisencing them as the sled are, we do!We have to have a sticker and numbers just like the sleds.We just have to have them on the back on a 4 x5 inch plate.If you were refering to the sleds having thiers on the shield, please read above.
I will ask some of my friends at work who are sleders, and atvers from Wisconson about the problems they faced and the regulations as they are today.
Didn't the state have a no cross country law and wasn't it against the law to ride in a state park at one time before?I seem to remember that we had to push our three wheelers down the road at the campground so we could ride the trails off the state park grounds.I know it must have been state parks only as we rode right from our driveway to the sand pit.Met the CO many times on the old logging road and never got a ticket, in fact he always talked with us about any thing going on in the area he should look into.
Just cuirios, how do the CO's thing it would be dangerous for them to patrol a trail, they do it with sled trails?

Benny

[Dave]

Riding in State Parks still is illegal. I can't figure out how it'd be dangerous for COs to patrol the trails either.

[Guest]

Spike,

Thanks for coming up the quote from Tony Cornish of the DNR. The only problem I have with that quote is the long standing battle the CO's union has had with the DNR. Hence, I think this quote might be a little tainted. The DNR wants to add some enforcement authority to their natural resource officers' job descriptions. The CO's union is very much against that. I suspect it has something to do with pay levels and union status. I would bet that the natural resource officers are not part of any peace officers union; probably just a state worker's union. I imagine that would be a conflict. Plus, the job security issue. If the state can cut some corners to save a little money right now, they're going to. So, if they can find a cheaper enforcement mechanism, they'll take it figuring they won't have to add more COs. I could be wrong, but I'd take Mr. Cornish's statement with a grain of salt.

[Dave]

That must be the 'dangerous' part of the quote, huh? Conflicts between the unions or somethin'.