ATV use on Public Land

[TFG]

With the DNR's public comment period regarding the use of ATV's on trails in MN what will be done to ensure that errosion, damage to streams, forest land and private property will be addressed properly? I have seen what the effects are in areas that are not controlled or used properly. I am not here to slam ATV'ers I just want to know how we are going to be able to work out a solution to maintain what we have.

Another question out of curiosity is how many ATV riders are members of the Leave No Trace Organization?

Please use the "contact us" link to get a link authorized. Thanks. Welcome to FM.

[CHOPPERTHEDOG]

I don't think that "public comment periods" were designed to ensure anything other than ensuring you can voice your opinions and concerns. After the comment period, your concerns may or may not be addressed to your satisfaction. I have seen the effects of an organized trail system and find it to be a favorable situation. I think that there are several trails that have existed for years now that could easily fall into the designated classification as well as some trails that would not. I think that having an organized trail system would be a huge step to the positive for the ATV recreation. What do you think it would take to ensure all of the issues you brought up would be addressed properly?

I am not currently a member of LNT.

[Walterwontfalter]

I believe that public land means just that, PUBLIC. Not just for one or two types of users. Everyone should have the same rights to use that PUBLIC land equally. I also belive that a lot of this legislation and rhetoric against ATV's, while some is true I think a lot of it is fueled by emotions of people that are just anti-ATV or pretty much Anti-anything that they don't participate in themselves. I don't like to go on public land bird-watching but I'm also not fighting and arguing to stop them from doing that. An organized trail system and more places for ATV's to ride that is accessible to everyone, not just those in the metro are, will greatly reduce the over-use of the public lands now in question.

[tripper]

I have not heard of leave no trace but if is what the name sounds like the human race will have to dissapear. every time we do something, write a note, flush, start a vehicle, get dressed, eat, you name it, we are leaving contibuting to leaving a trace.

disecnated, connecting trail systems through out the state is the way to go. with trail systems people will know for sure where they can and can not ride and the trails will be able to be maintained to correct the problems that you mention.

[TFG]

Like I stated before, I am not here to slam ATV'ers. Heck I am not against ATV's period. You are right everyone has a right to use public land. But everyone aslo has the responsibility to maintain, protect and conserve it as well. The areas I have seen with errosion and damage are not from people in the metro area down here bird watching. You can clearly see that it is from ATV's not following the rules and regulations. Example: Whitewater River North Branch area. Clearly posted NO MOTORIZED VEHICLES, there is an ATV trail that is damaging the watershed. Example: Rupprecht Valley, A bridge crosses the water on a trail. A trail goes through the water around the bridge. Is it not illegal to cross through that water on an ATV? I am not fueling anti-ATV "emotions". These are all hard facts.

There are numerous other accounts as well as land damage that can be pointed out. There is a problem with this even on designated trails, now everyone wants to be able to take them where ever they please. That is going to turn back the clock and do alot of damage to what many people have done a lot of hard work on for minnesota lands and watersheds. This is not a win-win situation, it is not in the best interest of anyone point blank.

[TFG]

Leave No Trace is a great organization, I am sure all ATV riders have heard of or belong to Tread Lightly. LNT is about minimizing, not eliminating. Riding on trails is a great plan, getting people to ride responsibly and on those trails is not the current plan. That is the issue.

[Dave]

TFG, I don't think you'll find anyone to argue your point. But, you highlighted exactly what goes on everywhere in everyday life in everyone's life, people break the law. Have any suggestions to stop this, I'm all ears.

IMO, I think there's a ton more serious problems in this world than what land an ATV rider damages (and I use the word "damage" with some hesitation).

ATV clubs and associations are trying very hard to educate riders. Like someone else said above, anything a person does will leave a trace. And, no, I do not belong to LNT. I skimmed through the web site. When there's words about keeping track and limiting dog do-do, I have more important things to do.

[Dave]

Quote:

---

Riding on trails is a great plan, getting people to ride responsibly and on those trails is not the current plan. That is the issue.

---

Kind of the same as getting drivers to drive the speed limit? Are you saying the plan is to have designated ATV trails and promote riders to NOT ride on them? Expand a little more about who's "plan" you're talking about.

[TFG]

The four proposed bills are the plan, and if they become law then there be less riding on the trails. There will be riding where ever they please. We can sit here and argue until the cows come home, it will do no good. I understand that there are clubs and associations promoting responsible riding, that is great! I agree that there are bigger problems in the world but you have to take care of the issues at home first.

[CHOPPERTHEDOG]

What is it that you think would help with the ATV issues that you brought up TFG? Any thoughts on ways to stop the people that are breaking the law? I would think that enforcement of rules/regulations that are pre-existing would help with that matter??

[A Fly Angler]

Are there so many citations being issued right now by law enforcement of illegal ATV use that it warrants dropping any proposed legislation to limit their use? The reality is probably that a few bad apples are giving ATV riders in general a bad name, but new legislation that would open up way more spaces (including the ability to cross 55 trout streams in the NE part of the state) is a tough thing to fathom.

Their damage on southeast Minnesota trout streams is obvious and apparent and illegal as well. How do we rectify that situation? Call the sheriff? I have. It didn't stop them nor were they cited.

[tripper]

fly angler can you fish a trout stream that is not here?

[Walterwontfalter]

IMO the problem with the legislation lies in that it's a group of ANTI-ATV'rs calling out for a large part of the legislation. I think enforcement is definately the win-win scenario. Punish the ones breaking the laws and do it harshly. It seems the easy way to solve things is to just punish everyone with "blanket" legislation that makes everything worse for everyone but the vocal ANTI-ATV'rs. I don't deny that ATV's damage land. Why aren't there more places for people to legally ride? As it is where I live, in East Central Minnesota, I can ride a boring straight abandoned railroad grade or a small park, that I have to trailer my ATV to, that is 30 miles away. There are many out there that are very vocal "habitual complainers" that want to put a stop to any use of public land that they don't participate in. Because of ATV owners that remain quiet or don't join clubs or organizations to speak up for them we lose places to ride and never get new areas opened up to us. What do you think would happen if all the ATV'rs started complaining about hikers or casual walkers, maybe cross country skiers and trying to stop them from participating in their chosen recreational activity? How many of them would speak up adamantly in their behalf? I can sure bet it will be a larger percentage of the ATV owners now sitting quietly by while their rights are taken away by selfish people who can't play together nice with others.

[castmaster]

i have asked this question various places, numerous times, and have yet to get an answer. who gets to decide what "ruins" the outdoors experience for others? who defines "ruined"? my experience is ruined when i come across a black top trail for bikers. my experience is ruined when i come across a hiking trail that has been cleared and wood chips laid down so those using it dont have to get too dirty. my experience is ruined when i have to dodge horse apples on a trail because some equestrian didnt pick up after their horse. i find a 2 track atv trails far less obtrusive than a cleared hiking or biking trail. logging roads are already there, the trace has been left behind, why not use them? oops i forgot, we'd be ruining the outdoors experience for somebody else(who most likely doesnt contribute any $$ to the outdoors, only uses what others have paid for).

why cant those that feel atv's ruin their experience use the state parks instead of the state forests? then they dont have to worry about coming across one of the vile machines that is ruining the planet earth. they can park their toyota prius and walk through the woods.

NO ATV TRAILS, NO BIKING TRAILS, NO HIKING TRAILS ETC ETC ETC. whats good for one is good for all right?

[coolbreeze]

Sign,Sign,everwhere a Sign.Don't do this, do that, just read the Sign.....good song 20 years ago and good song today.Ride atv? Take a stand...

[Walterwontfalter]

Quote:

---

who gets to decide what "ruins" the outdoors experience for others?

---

That's easy to answer: The ones who speak up and speak the loudest get to decide.

Speak up and contact your Senators and Representatives. Not sure who they are? click here District finder

[castmaster]

i have emailed and sent regular letters to my senators and representatives as well as speaking in person to my local representative, who is on the natural resources committee. i agree it may have some benefit, but in reality, the $$ that gets thrown at some of these politicians in campaign contributions by granola eatin, tree huggin, electric car drivin "constituents" can only be fought by giving larger contributions from atv'ers. PERIOD! if you think most politicians are going to vote in a manner that represents those who speak out louder over those who contribute more $$ i think you are being a bit naive. we need the manufactures to start putting more of their $$ where their mouths are. instead of polaris and artic cat shutting down their plants to bus people to community discussions, they should start making larger doantions to these politicians. their employees should start making campaign contributions. i can just about guarantee that most politicians are going to pay more attention to 1 letter or phone call from a campaign donor than 10 letters from people who donated nothing, and who may or may not have voted for them!

also, we need those in the industry to stop feeding in to the perception of atv'ers thats already out there. i have canceled subscriptions to the 3 atv related magazines i once subscribed to because i found them to have, in most issues, 80%+ of the pictures showing people "mudding" and behaving in the exact manner we all get accused of riding in, and i think it just adds "evidence" for the antis that thats what we all do.

[Walterwontfalter]

Yes, maybe it is a little naieve. But think about it by the numbers. How many ATV owners are there out there compared to how many Anti's? If every ATV owner spoke up and they outnumbered the Anti's those politicians would need to follow the outspoken majority or risk the end of their elected position. If they have the majority mad at them they aren't going to get re-elected so that money given toward their campaign is wasted. Am I wrong?

[castmaster]

its also, in my opinion, unrealistic to think that every single atv owner in the state feels the same way. i bet alot of them arent opposed to alot of the current legislation. why? because they use their atvs primarily on private land, be it for farm chores, hunting whatever. i also think their are alot of atv owners who do not like the destruction done by some owners of atv's. so to think that all atv owners would be against these measures is wishfull thinking. i also dont believe, other than in a few locals or with a small "hardcore" group, you will see very many atv owners basing their decisions on who to vote for based soley on how they voted on atv issues. if an atv owner likes 75% of what a politician is campaigning on, they will vote for them regardless of how they voted on an atv issue. add in to that that even though their are alot of atv owners in MN, we are a miniscule portion of the states population, split up over every district in the state. so if a politician receives 500 letters from individuals in his area asking him to support atv owners (and again, this politician has NO WAY to know whether this person voted for him/her or not) i dont believe he/she is going to feel much threat that they will not be re-elected based on the atv issue. when they hear from campaign donors, no matter how small, they know they are more than likely dealing with someone who voted for them previously and will do so again, in addition to aiding to fund their campaign again.

[Dave]

castmaster, I don't believe Walter was saying that every ATVer feels the same way. And, I will disagree with you on the amount of ATVers that would support the current legislation being asked for. I don't think there'd be many. The problem you will find is finding ATV owners that actually KNOW legislation is even being proposed that limits their access to public lands and, the way machines can set up.

I will look for data but I don't think a large number of ATVs are registered for only private land use. I don't believe there would be many since riding via the ditch to Joe neighbor's place would be illegal if registered for private use only. Either it's dual registration or the "private owners" aren't even registering it at all.

[Walterwontfalter]

My point is, like Dave said, most ATV owners don't have any idea what legislation is being introduced. And, of those that do know, most of those don't do anything about it. They don't take a simple 3 minutes out of their life to type up an e-mail. Or spend 5 minutes on a phone call. Or take the time to join a local ATV club or ATVAM.

To address the voting issue, Your responsibility in any election doesn't end with putting your ballot in the little slotted box. You have a responsibility to let those you elect know what you do and do not support. It's also your responsibility to let those that you did not vote for know the same.

A lot of legislators know they have certain constituents wrapped around their fingers. If those people voice displeasure over something then they make those constituents happy by passing bills into law that reflect their views. The naievete lays where someone actually believes that making new law after new law or new rule after new rule solves the problem. You can pass 20 laws saying that your neighbor can't look toward your property when he drives past but those laws and rules mean nothing if there isn't someone there to ensure he doesn't peek... and that person needs the authority to do so.

[castmaster]

i do understand where you guys are coming from. i just disagree with some of what you are saying. first off, this issue has received a fair amount of attention, and i find it difficult to believe that most atv owners dont know about this stuff. they may not all know about the exact language, or specifics, but you'd have to be a shut in with no tv or newspaper or internet etc to not have heard about this issue.

also my comments on alot of owners not caring because they use their atv PRIMARILY on private land. i didnt say exclusivley on private land. yes, there area minority who register their atvs for ag use and thus are restricted to private land only. but to someone who uses their machine on public lands a couple times a year, we are going to have a pretty hard time riling those types up to get off their apathetic butts and do something to help those of us who ride public lands more often. again, doesnt mean i agree with that mentality, just accept it as a fact of life in our rat race of a society. for the most part unless something affects someone personally most are too busy to support their "neighbor".

i personally disagree that contacting your politicians is what all that is needed to curtail this. (although as i have said i did contact mine, REPEATEDLY, just because i figure it cant hurt either) there are far more non atv owners out there than there are owners. for most of those people they will support erring on the side of caution when it comes to "protecting" natural places. why? because more and more atv regulations have no effect on them...they dont use atv's. there are many in the hunting community that want to see them banned. there are many in the "tree hugger" community that want to see them banned. etc etc etc. i believe if this issue was put to a referendum vote, we would lose bigtime. we are a small minority in this state whether some want to accept that or not.

you talk of politicians being wrapped around fingers. do you honestly believe that its coincidence that the most outspoken legislators against these regulations come from the northern districts that house polaris and artic cat factories? i may be cyncical, but i dont believe for a second that if it wasnt for being "wrapped around the fingers" of a major industry and source of jobs in that area that those politicians would be so adamant about the position they have taken. they arent supporting atv users so much as they are supporting large campaign comtributors and sources of jobs in their communities. like it or not, in our society, MONEY TALKS! period. alot of b.s. gets pushed through thats more damaging to the enviroment than atvs, becuase it has big $$ behind it.

as i have said, if you truly want to have more of an effect when speaking to your local and state politicians, and its someone you support their ideas, DONATE TO THEIR CAMPAIGN. again call me cynical, but i think it says it all when you have big business making contributions to ALL who are running, democrat and republican alike. sounds an awful lot to me like they know enough to "hedge their bets". they are buying influence. if our system truly reflected the "will of the people" and not $$ alot of things would be different in this country.

furthermore, i feel there needs to be some room for compromise on this issue. it shouldnt be all or nothing. i personally see a need for some of the proposed legislation. but with the way things are i have to decide whether to be in support of none of the propsed regulations, or to support all of them, the good, the bad, and the in between. it doesnt have to be that way. its one of the reasons i am not a member of atvam. i dont personally agree with some of the things they stand behind. i have no problem with increased fines and possible loss of equipment for gross violations. just as i have no problem with forfeiture of automobliles for repeat dwi offenses. i disagree with some of the things that could constitue a serious violation that would lead to confiscation. i support the idea that atv's dont need to be able to go anywhere and everywhere as some want to see. i do not support the idea that we should be held to a small number of "trails" made from abandonded railroads. to me thats almost the same as driving down a gravel road in my truck. not what i bought an atv to do. i support rules that keep atv's out of some types of wetlands, i do not support keeping them out of all wetlands (including some that only hold water during spring run off) i could go on and on. i think "our" side loses some support from even fellow atv owners when we follow the all or nothing way of looking at things.

i also think the atv industry needs to help clean up our image and start presenting a better "face" of atvers. like i said before i have cancelled all subscriptions to atv related magazines because i was sick and tired of seeing page after page of people and atv's covered in mud, buried in mud, tearing up the land etc. there is FAR more of that in atv magazines than there is photos and articles of "responsible" riding. its easy for me to see where some under-informed people may get the idea we are all like that when its what is "promoted" by industry sources. i just purchased a new set of tires for my atv, they are "sponsored" by ducks unlimited and suposedly the tread pattern and design help to break down ruts on trails instead of increasing them. perhaps other tire manufacturers should follow suit. instead i open an atv catalog and a pretty good portion of the tires for sale are aggressive "mudder" tires. is there really such demand for those types of tires from only a few "bad apples" who are wrecking it for all of us? personally i feel that the resposible riders outnumber the "bad apples", but i think the "bad apples" make up a much larger portion of the atv community than some want to admit to. i have very few freinds to ride with anymnore because i refuse to ride with people who want to "tear s#*t up" and unfortunately it seems most of the guys i have tried to ride with are "mudders". i have also witnessed a fair number of other "mudders" when just out riding by myself. i feel stongly that issue needs to be dealt with. but my choices are to want no new atv regs to deal with the increased number of users we are seeing, or i musy choose to let the "no fun police" try and get rid of atv's altogether. see the problem with this all or nothing dump?

the last thing i want to comment on was the remark of:

" The naievete lays where someone actually believes that making new law after new law or new rule after new rule solves the problem. You can pass 20 laws saying that your neighbor can't look toward your property when he drives past but those laws and rules mean nothing if there isn't someone there to ensure he doesn't peek... and that person needs the authority to do so."

that can be applied to anything and everything in our society. our law enforcement personnel have had ZERO success in winning the war on drugs. they cant even keep drugs out of maximum security prisons. short of having mind police that can see through peoples doors and into their private lives, laws against drugs are just as unenforceable as these atv laws. do you then support repealing drug laws? how about fish and game laws. is it stupid to come up with new regs, be they slot limits, reduced bag limits, etc etc because there isnt enough enforecement? should we just stop making any new laws period because the ones we already have cant be effectivle enforced? or do we continue to grow and evolve?

[castmaster]

one example i wanted to use to kind of get my point across.

if a politicain has 500,000 constituents in his/her district, and 10,000 of those are atv owners, do you really believe even the prospect of losing all 10,000 votes from atv owners (and thats assuming all 10,000 of those people voted for that politician in the first place) is going to threaten their chances for reelection? to THE VAST MAJORITY of people this is a non issue for them. TO THE VAST MAJORITY of minnesotans, atv issues will have ZERO effect on the decision they make come election day. so to think we can simply write enough letters to stop this is wishfull thinking. we need an active publicity campaign, funded by the manufacturers, atv groups, etc to get the word out there and to clean up and improve our image. to me that is the best, and maybe only chance to find a workable a fair solution for everyone. where have polaris and artic cat been? why havent they put their $$ out there to buy tv ads, radio time, newspaper space etc to garner more support?

p.s. does atvam or other local atv groups require their members to volunteer as trail "enforcement" personnel like alot of the WI groups do? i know WI has had much better success in getting a workable trail sytem going. over there you can even ride the snowmobile trails in the winter, and they have atv trail systems similar to snowmobile trails, where private land owners allow trails to cross their property. i have just always been curious as to why they have had more success there then we have had here. obviously they are doing something different, maybe we could learn something from them?

[Dave]

Quote:

---

..... we need an active publicity campaign, funded by the manufacturers, atv groups, etc to get the word out there and to clean up and improve our image. to me that is the best, and maybe only chance to find a workable a fair solution for everyone. where have polaris and artic cat been? why havent they put their $$ out there to buy tv ads, radio time, newspaper space etc to garner more support?

castmaster, your fingers must be sore after these couple of posts

Your opinion is pretty valid but, you refer to WE. If you don't belong to ATVAM, do you think it's fair to not support them and expect them to fight for you? Especially when you'd like to see things that cost a lot of money. ATVAM is made up of volunteers. ATVAM's legislation did propose some stricter regulations but decline some from the anti-atv group since the do not follow the same lines of restrictions for other recreations; such as snowmobiles and boats.

p.s. does atvam or other local atv groups require their members to volunteer as trail "enforcement" personnel like alot of the WI groups do? i know WI has had much better success in getting a workable trail sytem going. over there you can even ride the snowmobile trails in the winter, and they have atv trail systems similar to snowmobile trails, where private land owners allow trails to cross their property. i have just always been curious as to why they have had more success there then we have had here. obviously they are doing something different, maybe we could learn something from them?

---

ATVAM does not "require" anything from its members although many of the association does volunteer. Groups like ATVAM have been fighting FOR a system like WI for quite a few years.

And, the legislators in the northern part of the country are supporting what the people of that part of the state want, not just because Polaris and Cat are up there. Those people ride ATVs to work! They ride into town on ATVs! That's how those people live and really aren't to keen on having legislators from the city trying to change their lifestyle. Would you?

Out of 15 people that I know who own ATVs have no idea what's going on as far as legislation goes that would limit or ban their use. Some have chosen to financially support ATVAM since they would still like to use their ATVs like they are now. And, they're busy in this rat race life as I think you mentioned earlier.

Most of your opinions are pretty much the same as what most ATVers and ATVAM is asking for (I think); reasonable regulations, which I think we already have.

[Walterwontfalter]

Quote:

---

short of having mind police that can see through peoples doors and into their private lives, laws against drugs are just as unenforceable as these atv laws. do you then support repealing drug laws? how about fish and game laws. is it stupid to come up with new regs, be they slot limits, reduced bag limits, etc etc because there isnt enough enforecement? should we just stop making any new laws period because the ones we already have cant be effectivle enforced? or do we continue to grow and evolve?

---

If we have 50 laws that aren't solving the problem, does making 50 more laws solve anything? Is that evolving and growing or just spinning our wheels? (pun intended)

Like you also mentioned,

Quote:

---

but i dont believe for a second that if it wasnt for being "wrapped around the fingers" of a major industry and source of jobs in that area that those politicians would be so adamant about the position they have taken. they arent supporting atv users so much as they are supporting large campaign comtributors and sources of jobs in their communities. like it or not, in our society, MONEY TALKS! period.

---

You actually prove my point exactly, Compare the average wage of a resident of "greater Minnesota" to the average wage of a resident of the twin cities. Also compare the unemployment rate of greater Minnesota to that of the Twin cities area. All these regulations are directly affecting the lives of those people who not only work for Polaris and Cat but the whole region. Why should anyone but those people get to decide that which affects them directly? You're right, money talks. And that money is in the twin cities and if you don't live there you get the shaft. Wonder why those people are fighting back?