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. ?

Tire tread/lug height restriction? What the.....


Recommended Posts

Howdy All..

My buddy just informed me that our law makers are thinking about restricting the height of the tread on our ATV tires... Any info on this?

Also... I heard of a bunch of changes, or proposed changes, in the ATV/OHV rules and regs. Anybody have any details on these changes or know where I could find some info?


M-H (aka: Dan)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your buddy is correct BUT, I don't believe any of the bills with those restrictions made it through the Legislative session. I don't know if anything made it through the legislative session....LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites


It started at 3/4-inch tread height but was increased to one-inch in hopes of a, "compromise".

12.7 (8) on public lands with tires that have a tread depth
12.8 greater than one inch;

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will agree with just about everything people have stated here. Deep tread will cause less damage in most situations when the machine is rode propery.. there are a few things aggressive tread is harder on.. like doing a U-turn on your lawn.

Where we run into the problem, is when some riders see any sign of moisture(mud) they automaticly nail the throttle and run 7000 rpm's... yes, an agressive tire will tear it up... but so will any tire.

The only machine I have deep tread on now is a 185s 3 wheeler. I do far less damage with the Super Swampers than I do with any of the other *trail riding* tires I have used... I cause less damage riding across than sitting in a puddle spinning the tires.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ya know this is probly a good thing. I dont care what you want to do on your own land. Ive been riding for a number of years & dont remember seeing alot of trail damage until big wheel kits & mud tires became real popular. I think if they imposed & enforced a law like that, it would not damage the trails as much and people would be more inclined to stay on the trails. If people respected the laws, we would no be in the predicanment we are with all these new laws

Link to comment
Share on other sites

pikechaser, I think your last line sums it up and our predicament has nothing to do with the size of tires. Actual experience says that deeper lugs create better traction and reduces wheel spin when traction is needed. But, that only works as well as the rider behind the throttle. Also, the width of the lugs does play a role in how deep the lugs penetrate the soil.

Most of the taller tires have lugs deeper than 1-inch. So, if only a taller tire and more ground clearance is the objective, a rider can't do that; unless the tire companies make taller tires with shallower depth lugs.

Deep lugs do also work a lot better in snow and for pulling implements also.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no problem with the tires, I agree there is a use for them. However they are not needed for trail riding, and with the increased use of atv trails these last few years the trails are going to be affected more. I have 2 sets of tires, and prefer the deeper lug tires for plowing snow & during hunting & ice fishing season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It did not pass as law. This is what did happen last seesion though.

ATVAM Members:

OHV Legislative Update

by Ray Bohn

May 18, 2004

In an actual agreed-to compromise between users, environmentalist, and the House and Senate members working on OHV wetland regulation, legislation was passed into law
the last day of session which takes a totally new approach to the OHV/wetland issue. The wetlands issue has plagued
OHV enthusiast since the unintended consequences from last year?s OHV legislation.

The new approach, originally authored by Rep. Dennis Ozment, Chair of the House Environment Finance Committee, centers on the impact of the activity on a wetland, not the activity itself. It uses as a standard for that impact some of the current Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) regulations (MSS Chpt 103G.2241).

Those dealing with wetlands the past decade are familiar with this law that has been in effect since the early 1990's (with some amending along the way). This approach
offers OHVers a more common sense approach to the wetland issue.

Under the WCA approach, OHVs will have to adhere to wetland impacts on all types of wetlands, not just the type 3,4, 5,
and 8s. But, nowhere does it say we can?t go into a wetland, if no or minimal damage is the result. Again, instead of focusing on the activity, it focuses on the impact.

If damage is caused, the law does allow what is referred to as a "de minimis" provision which allows for some impact (400 square ft.). In counties with more pre-settlement
wetlands (80% or more), their de minimis can rise if the county board approves that change.

With the de minimis provisions, riders do have some margin of error in riding close to or in a wetlands. For example, if you ride close to a dry type 3 wetland, you could have
been cited under the old provision for actually being in the wetland even though it was dry if you were within the ordinary high water mark of that wetland, regardless if you
caused damage or not. Under the new law, actual damage would have to be proven, and in excess of the de minimis provided.

In addition, there is a clause that does provide for enforcement if an OHVer "carelessly" upsets the natural and
ecological balance of a wetland or public waters wetland.
We?ll have to wait and see the final interpretation of this clause, but my guess of the practical application would be is the smaller the wetland the more likely you?ll
upset the balance described above.

Under this new approach OHVer?s will clearly need to use their judgment when they get close to or find themselves in a wetland. If found guilty of violating these provisions, fines and restoration can be called for.

Another important feature of the new wetland legislation is that present exempted activity in wetlands (agricultural,
utilities, etc.) are also exempted for OHVs.

Finally, the commissioner of DNR was given the authority to issue permits up to 10 years in duration to exempt private landowner or leaseholder from this law when the only reasonable access to a permit applicant's land is across state land.

In addition to this section in HF 2212, OHV legislation was passed in SF 2472, Sect. 32, which will allow the commissioner of DNR to move forward on OHV trail designation without promulgating rules. It would have
taken an additional 2 years to do rules without this provision.

Unfortunately, we were unable to move forward on other OHV language even though much of it was non-controversial. We
hope to be able to move forward on that legislation in the next session.

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.