Jump to content

    If you want access to members only forums on HSO, you will gain access only when you Sign-in or Sign-Up .

    This box will disappear once you are signed in as a member. ?

HERE WE GO AGAIN!!!The green people want your ATV'S


Recommended Posts

Well I knew it wouldn't be long before some metro area legeslatore would want to bolster his or her agendas and jump on the Green peoples wagon.Now there are more bills being introduced that out right make it illegal to even own an ATV.Yours and my expensive quads will be confiscated and auctioned off!!!!

Well It may not be that bad, but it sure looks like that is where these tree huging green people want to go.

Check out the new bill tring to get passed.

2 metro area legislators, Senator Marty and Senator Dibble, have introduced an ANTI-ATV bill that will shut down ALL riding opportunities in our state. We are asking you to contact your local senators regarding your concerns with SF 2665. See link below for actual language of SF 2665. When contacting your local senator let them know you are a constituent, give them your name, address and phone #'s. Always be polite and courteous. Any derogatory comments will be discarded.

When a hearing is scheduled for SF 2665 we will let you know. It will be important that anyone who is available attend the hearing at the capitol. Pass this information on to all of your friends who may not be on our alert list.

To find your local senator use this link:


Thanks for your support to defeat the bill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have heard that there will be an ATV hearing with possible discussion on SF 2665 in the Senate on Monday, 3-15-04 or Wed, 3-17-04, 12:30 PM. This has not been confirmed. We are asking that you keep these dates open. We will send out an alert when the dates and time are confirmed, but it will be short notice. We need as many people as possible to attend this meeting!

Some of our membership has requested that we provide talking points and history for SF 2665. We are working on that and will send out soon.

Thanks for your support!

As copied from an ATVAM news letter.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes it's going to hearing , time and dates below.

There will be an Senate Environment and Natural Resources Committee Hearing. We need as many people in attendance as possible! Wear Club and/or ATV clothing so the Senator's can see, at a glance, which side you are on.

When: Monday, March 15, 2004

Time: 12:30 PM
Continuation of meeting if necessary at 6:30, Rm 107

Where: Room 107 Capitol
75 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd
St. Paul, MN 55155-1606


S.F.1673-Saxhaug: Off-highway vehicles operation restriction modification.

S.F.1711-Koering: Off-highway vehicle operation in wetlands restriction modified.

S.F.1776-Stumpf: Off-highway motor vehicles operation restrictions modifications.

S.F: 2157-Saxhaug: Off highway vehicles operation restrictions modification.

S.F. 2367-Ruud: Utility or pipeline companies maintenance vehicles all-terrain vehicles regulations exemption.

S.F. 2665-Dibble: Off highway vehicle trails designation and grants accountability.

S.F. 2736-Marty: Off highway vehicles operation restrictions modifications; forest trails designation rulemaking exemption and forest classification status review requirements expansion.

S.F. 2761-Marty: Motorized trail grants in aid violation penalties and rules adoption requirements.

S.F. 2793-Frederickson: Off highway vehicle use on wetlands impact study.

S.F. XXXX-Marty: Off highway vehicle equipment and enforcement provisions.

Copied from ATVAM news letter.

It is recamended to where ATV club or ATV orientated clothing so the senators can see what side your on at a glance!!!!


[This message has been edited by Benny (edited 03-11-2004).]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, buy how in the heck did those people get elected. They are idiots, they think they are going to stop riding in Minnesota. They have guts. I love riding on trails. They need to think about this or resign. This is stupid. They to make it illegal to buy vehicle. What are they thinking. Just thinking about making a law like this is stupid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adam I couldn't agree more.These tree hugger people don't want ANY ATV's at all to be owned in Minnesota or any where else for that matter.
If they can get their way , there won't be any ATV,Snowmobile,Jet ski's,or two cycle boats allowed to be used any where.

They simply think they know more than any one else does when it comes to the envionment, and they will stop at nothing to ban all the above.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read the link you posted and I didn't see anything that mentioned it would be illegal to buy or own an ATV in MN, am I missing something? What I read was language to stop destruction of ditches and driveways and looking into funding and maintaining ATV trails.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have read the proposed bill and I have not read anything in it that says it is illegal to buy or own an atv. It appears that the idea behind the bill is to make it so difficult to designate and maintain a trail that clubs will be overburdened and the trails would then go away. Overburden them with paperwork and filing of paperwork, making clubs contact every land owner annually to make sure there are no problems, etc. When testifying or writing letters to your senators I would suggest sticking to facts. The ATVAM can supply everyone with facts to combat this bill. The MRR and "environmentalists" do not have facts. Listen to Jeff Brown from the MRR once or twice and you will find that he has no basis for his ideas and feelings, and most of the time he quotes "facts" that are just not true! the only fact that they can come up with is that there has been atv damage to the environment. If I wanted to I could supply pictures of walkers and mountain biker damage to the environment. The reason these bills get introduced is the MRR and "environmentalists" are very organized, very vocal, well financed group of people. The sqeaky wheel gets the grease, and they are very squeaky. Send letters to your senators, go to the meetings if possible, and give them facts on why this bill is a bad idea.
Jim Walters

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr Brown of MRR Duluth News Tribune story...
Posted on Thu, Mar. 18, 2004

Group questions Dill's ties to snowmobile club


ST. PAUL - State Rep. David Dill was on the political defensive Wednesday after a Northland environmental group requested an investigation into his relationship with Voyageur Trail Society Inc.

Duluth-based Minnesotans for Responsible Recreation asked the state auditor to investigate how Dill and the city of Orr have handled state grant-in-aid money allocated for snowmobile trail construction and maintenance.

In addition to representing District 6A in the Legislature and serving as Orr's city administrator, Dill works for the society, a nonprofit umbrella organization that serves five northern Minnesota snowmobile clubs.

Minnesotans for Responsible Recreation has documents that say Dill was paid $2,250 a month by the society in 2001. The society also paid $440 a month to cover family health insurance premiums during 2002.

Dill, DFL-Crane Lake, has been on the society's payroll for at least 10 years.

"I was put on the payroll," Dill said Wednesday. But he added "I wasn't an officer, and I don't handle the money."


Jeff Brown, executive director for Minnesotans for Responsible Recreation, believes Dill has a conflict of interest. He said Dill holds the top administrative post for Orr, which is fiscal agent for grant-in-aid money going to the society. Annually, the city funnels $80,000 in state snowmobile trail grant money to the trail group.

"He is, in fact, a staff person employed by the fiscal agent and the grant recipient," Brown said.

He cited city records that show Orr was paid $5,000 by the society to cover Dill's salary for time Dill spent working as a trail administrator. That flow of money, Brown said, should raise concern.

"Why are they taking club money and giving it back to the city?" he asked.

Dill, who is on leave from the city while in St. Paul, said the money paid for economic development work he performed as city administrator through a partnership Orr has with the club and others.

Brown conceded Minnesotans for Responsible Recreation can't prove the society paid Dill with grant-in-aid money, saying the money is merged with other revenue the society collects, including its pull-tab gambling income.

The News Tribune could not reach Voyageur Trail Society President Joel Astleford for comment Wednesday.


Legislation pending in the Minnesota Senate would prevent such relationships, prohibiting grant-in-aid fiscal agents from also working for grant recipients.

"We should all be interested in sound accountability for these state funds," said Sen. Scott Dibble, DFL-Minneapolis, a co-sponsor of the bill.

Dibble said his legislation is not prompted by the Dill matter. He agreed it could be difficult for public leaders in smaller communities to avoid obvious conflicts of interest.

"But certainly, a grant administrator can't likewise be a grant recipient," Dibble said.

He said his goal is to ensure that public money allocated for snowmobile trails is serving its intended purpose.

With more than 100 snowmobile trail administrators in Northeastern Minnesota, Brown is most troubled by the lack of public oversight on how they spend grant-in-aid money.

"If they are all being paid at the David Dill rate, we would have over $4 million going out the door," Brown said.


Dill said there is nothing illegal in the way Minnesota grant-in-aid money is handled by him or the city of Orr. He contends Minnesotans for Responsible Recreation is waging a smear campaign during an election year.

"This is wholly political, and they've been on this kick for a long time," Dill said. "This MRR is the extreme of the extreme, and they are going to do anything they can to get after me."

Another Northland lawmaker said the group was attacking Dill because they oppose all motorized recreation.

"These people are so far out there. They want to ban everything," said Rep. Tom Rukavina, DFL-Virginia. "This is a concerted effort to go after his character, but this is an upright and honorable man."

Wednesday's accusations were the second lodged this month against Dill. On March 3, DFL officials called on the state's Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board to investigate Dill's 2002 election campaign, contending he exceeded state spending limits, misrepresented expenses, accepted illegal gifts and failed to file reports on time.

Dill denied the March 3 allegations, also saying they were politically motivated.

SCOTT THISTLE covers the Minnesota Legislature reach him weekdays at (651) 222-1265 or e-mail [email protected]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OLe1855,Little_Bones- Where and when did I ever say the bill stated any thing about it being illegal to own or buy ATV,s??????

I did state that the tree hugger people WANT IT THAT WAY.I did not state the bill was to make it illegal to buy or own them!!!

Please read my posts before replying with false statements, and if you read something into them that I didn't post, I am sorry that you didn't comprehend the post.

It is very time consuming to search all the bills being entered for review, then come here and post a note for all the ATV people who don't get the ATVAM news letters to know about them.

I don't get paid or get any perks for doing this,I simply love to ride ATV's and don't want to end up with a $6000 dollar machine sitting in my garage that is illegal to ride any where.

Do you think these "environmentalists"(Thanks for the political correct word) , will stop at banning just ATV's?once they accomplish this , they need to justify their organization so they will surely go on to banning snowmobiles,jet ski's,boats,lawn mowers,weed wackers,fishing ,hunting,water sking,target shooting, and any thing else they think will draw money from people who just don't know any better.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Benny, you are correct. In your first post you stated that there are being bills introduced that will make it illegal to own an atv.
Sorry that I misread it.
I don't get paid to write letters or attend meetings either... I too, love the sport and do not want my ATV's sitting in the garage collecting dust.
My point is that we need to have everyone work together (write letters, attend meetings, call senators, etc) so that we can become more organized than the "environmentalists" so we can prevent this non-sense legislation and have our sport flurish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a quote from your first statement;

Well I knew it wouldn't be long before some metro area legeslatore would want to bolster his or her agendas and jump on the Green peoples wagon.Now there are more bills being introduced that out right make it illegal to even own an ATV.Yours and my expensive quads will be confiscated and auctioned off!!!!

Before you start admonishing people for not reading your wild ranting read your own posts!!!


Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the beginning, some of the items in some of the bills would've made almost every ATV in our garages, illegal to be ridden on public lands.

Everyone needs to write more clearly AND not read more than what the intent of the post is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did read my own post, you didn't take the time to read the next line down.

Here it is :

" Well It may not be that bad, but it sure looks like that is where these tree huging green people want to go. "

I was simply trying to get peoples attention with the first paragragh, obviously it worked!!!!!!

I stated in the second paragragh that it wasn't that bad, and that it appeares to be where the tree huggers are headed.

If you want to take over the fight, be my guest.I don't have to put up with your bashing and try to help out too.
Go ahead and see how good of a job you can do, I am sure Dave won't mind your help in searching the bills.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Little_Bones I totally agree and have said just that in many posts.
It's people like some of the others here that just can't get it that we need to stick to gether.

Sure I come here with ,and I quote"My wild rants" , but I do so because I grew up on the Iron range and riding the three wheeler was my thing.I didn't play school sports, I was into hunting and fishing.With my father working the mines 6 days aweek and having to drive two hours one way to work he didn't have time until Sundays to go with me.So I rode the ATV to go do those things.

I race ATV's for three years as well, still have my 88 TRX 250R.I now like to take my time on the trails, so the slow Polaris gets riden more often.

I have 5 ATV's in my stable, you bet I don't want to see any bans at all.I do think that some area's need to be off limits, and I also think there is a need to stiffen the penalties for the lawless riders that rip up wet lands or destroy some ones drive way.

All the laws are there, just not enough inforcement or money to pay for that inforcement.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

I grew up on the Range as well, my father worked in the mines for 47 years, I grew up hunting and fishing also. I moved to the Cities to go to school in 1977 and stayed since there weren't any jobs on the Range that paid what I got here. I do go back quite often, I have a hunting shack up north. I didn't mean to get your undies in a bunch but there wouldn't be any need for the legislators to be creating all kinds of anti-ATV laws if it weren't for a few people that "ride-to-destroy" trails. There is a very big difference between people who love to go out and ride wheelers and people that go out and see how much mud they can throw up in the air and into the trees. I drive up Hwy. 169 alot to fish ML, when I see ditches that are destroyed with huge ruts and mud thrown everywhere I see where the anti's get there fuel to ad to the fire. I'm not trying to pi$$ anyone off but it's always a few that ruin it for the many!!!!!!!!!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Howdy folks....

After reading this thread, I felt I needed to post....

mad.gifmad.gifSIMMER THE HE** DOWN!!!! mad.gifmad.gif

As we can all agree, this issue is VERY emotional. Bickering will get us no where. Okay, so some wording my have been taken "the wrong way". That's the problem with internet forums such as this. There is no personal (voice) inflection that may be needed to get our points across and taken in "the right way". All we have here is typed words, with out the human aspect.

I do not claim to know all the answers, but if everyone (as in both "sides") could just put all these "political agendas", party stances, and the finger pointing aside, we (as in both "sides") MAY just be able to come up with a solution.

Oh, to live in a perfect world rolleyes.gif... The soapbox is open....

M-H (aka: Dan)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am just expressing my opinion. I am not calling one person an one-who-thinks-I-am-silly I am attacking their opinions not the person. I just dont see how people can change things with out thinking much about the riders. The first post stated somthing about making it against the law to buy a wheeler. I dont know if he was just joking or somebody thought that could happen. Look at the people who want to take firearms away from good sportsman. They dont think much either. You expect to take peoples guns away, yeah right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another plot to gain control over your rights to ride an ATV.This one appeares to be more retrictive than the rest.
I have not had time to read it through so I can't make any real judgement yet.

From an ATVAM news letter.

"Last Friday (3/19/04) the Senate Environment and Natural Resources Policy Committee passed a very anti-OHV bill (SF 2793) authored by Sen. Fredrickson and Marty ( with much input from Sen. Ruud) to the Senate Environment, Ag, and Economic Development Budget Division. This legislation is as bad or worse than the anti-access legislation passed by the Senate last year. Our anti-access opponents even had an amendment to not allow 4x4 trails on public lands, a move that was fortunately defeated in the committee.

Here are some of the "low-lights" of the bill. These low-lights have the potential to devastate the OHV dedicated accounts by draining resources for everything except for what we need most -- designated trails -- and in the end deny us access to public lands.

Depletion of our dedicated accounts is not a new tactic to be used on us --- last year you may recall the Marty-Ruud bill had such a large price tag tied to it the bill fell under its own weight. This bill is a bit more subtle, but the result would be the same for our dedicate OHV accounts --- devastation.

The anti-access folks testify that they want us to have designated trails, yet attempt to stall or hinder our progress to develop them in any way possible.

Five major areas of concern:

Damage account: this legislation eliminates the OHV Damage Account financial safeguards put in the final legislation last year. The deleted language protects these account from frivolous or unsubstantiated claims. Eliminated are the requirements that the claimant doesn't have to make reasonable efforts to identify the responsible individual to collect damages from and, the claimant would not have to made reasonable efforts to prevent any reoccurrence. In addition, SF 2793 would not return OHV funds to our accounts at the end of the two year period as specified in the 2003 legislation, and would continue on after 2005. This section needs to be returned to the more accountable 2003 language.

OHV Safety & Conservation Program: SF 2793 opens this proposed safety and conservation grant program for OHV clubs to non-OHV groups. This clearly would allow our opponents access to these grant funds to be used to rail against our recreational activity. This is a very cynical maneuvered and shows a total disregard for our past and future safety and conservation efforts. We need to eliminate this language and substitute with the Safety & Conservation Language from SF 1776 which would allow for OHV clubs to self police their activities.

Gas Tax Study: SF 2397 gas tax study language questions the "purpose and appropriateness" of allowing unrefunded gas tax to be used for the OHV accounts, even though it is a long standing federal and state policy for all types of off-road vehicles, including snowmobiles and boats. This is a blatant attempt by our opponents to eliminate gas tax funding from our accounts. This would obviously be a major blow to our trail development. We need to eliminate this language and substitute with the language from SF 1776.

OHV Wetland Study and Report: This legislation is totally unnecessary and expensive. This is again a subtle attempt to drain our OHV accounts of much needed funds for trail development. DNR already has a total public waters wetlands inventory and this would only replicate that information. In addition, a designated trail system will keep us off wetlands, so let us put our resources into trail development, not throw our funds away on a study that will be moot almost before it is completed.

Tire Tread Depth: SF 2793 would prohibit the use of tires on ATVs with a tread depth greater than one inch. This legislation would create chaos and tremendous expense with some manufactures and people who have tires with tread depth exceeding one inch. This language is premature because DNR is joining with the Forest Service in a tire tread study this summer to determine if, in fact, tire depth does more or less to cause erosion. We should not be making this decision at this point, let’s wait for the result of this study.

Miscellaneous Issues: Several more issues we are contending with in this bill include the requirement that ATVs must have a 6" X 12" license plate, more grant-in-aid trails bureaucratic procedures, and makes air intake pipes more than 6" above the manufacturers original air intake pipe illegal on public lands and public waters.

We strongly urge you to contact the following members of the Senate Environment & Ag Finance Committee and urge them to treat us fairly and change the language in SF 2793 to help protect our dedicated accounts from our anti-access opponents.

We also urge you to contact your own senator and ask them to talk to members of the committee and ask them to help make the changes we need in the bill to insure the integrity of our dedicated accounts. We will send out a copy of the bill (SF 2793, 1st Engrossment) once it is processed by the Senate and available to the public.

Sen. Michele Bachman
Sen. Tom Bakk
Sen. Gary Kubly
Sen. Pat Pariseau
Sen. Julie Rosen
Sen. Jim Vickerman
Sen. Steve Dille
Sen. Dallas Sams

http://www.senate.leg.state.mn.us/committee/2003-2004/Finance_Environment/members.htm[/uR L]


Thanks for the support all you people have given to the fight to ride an ATV.


[This message has been edited by Benny (edited 03-28-2004).]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another meeting is being held, please try to attend if posible.::

We have heard that there will be a senate hearing in the Environment and Natural Resources FINANCE committee either Tuesday March 30, 2004 or Wednesday, March 31, 2004 (probably Wednesday). This has not been confirmed. We are asking that you keep these dates open. We will send out an alert when the date and time is confirmed, but it will be short notice. If you are available to attend we could use the support.

The hearing will include discussion on SF 2793 which pertains to: Damage account, OHV Safety & Conservation program, Gas Tax Study, OHV Wetland Study & Report, Tire tread depth and miscellaneous issues that were outlined in previous email sent.

Thanks for your support!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is the confermed date and time.
The senate hearing has been confirmed for Wednesday, March 31, 2004. If you have time to attend, your presence is appreciated.

Environment, Agriculture and Economic Devl. Budget Division
Chair: Senator Dallas Sams
12:30 p.m., Room 107 Capitol

S.F. 2313 (Fredrickson) modifying bonding authority for the MN
Public Facilities Authority

S.F. 2793 (Fredickson) modifying restrictions on the operation of off-
highway vehicles

S.F. 2462 (Anderson) housing and redevelopment authority
residential properties.

S.F. 1934 (Dibble) requiring motor vehicle manufacturers to
establish a mercury switch collection program

S.F. 2145 (Skoe) Conservation easements

Thanks, Benny

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.