Okanogan/Wenatchee travel management process

[bobcat]

 
Washington state DID pass a law, just like what you're talking about, a few years ago. I even printed out a copy of it. It's now up to the National Forest to change THEIR rules so that ATV's can be used on forest service roads in this state.
 
If you don't believe me about the law, I will dig it out of my file cabinet and post the number so it can be looked up. I don't know why nothing ever seemed to come of it. The new law even made it so that certain county roads could be designated as legal for ATV's, as long as it had a speed limit of 35 mph or less.

Bobcat-  Can you post that RCW #?   It can't be as liberal as Idaho's, can it? 

Yes, I will when I get a chance.

[358NM]

Bobcat
I believe what you are referring to is a revision to state law that was passed several years ago allowing cities and counties the discretion to open certain roads to atv/utv use. That is why it is legal to ride atv's in the city of Okanogan and county roads to Conconuylly. It is not at all what the law in Idaho is, unless you know something I haven't found. As a side note the USFS threatened to close all forest roads in Idaho this year if Idaho didn't put helmet restriction and I believe age restrictions on atv use on forest roads. The USFS explained to me the reason you can ride on forest roads in Idaho and not Washington is that the atv's are licensed and legal for road use on virtually all roads in Idaho, not so in Washington. Don't know if that is official policy or just the opnion of the guy I talked to.

[bobcat]

358NM-  I think you are right but there was something in there that changed the definition of "highway" so that non-street legal vehicles no longer would need to be street legal in order to be used on any road not considered a "highway". Which, before this new law, National Forest roads were highways by definition. It also addressed what you mentioned- that cities and counties could designate certain roads as being open for ATV use. My understanding of the change in the law, is that one of the main reasons for it was so that the USFS could begin to allow ATV use on some of the National Forest roads. It was still up to the USFS to open roads or not open roads for ATV's, but at least with the new law, they could do it and not be in violation of state law.


I always thought it was ridiculous that ATV's were not legal on the same forest service roads that you could drive a Jeep on. Now I'm sort of on the fence on the issue. In a way I'm glad the USFS is as strict as they are on ATV use in this state. Because the problem is, if all or many of the roads on National Forest were open, then ATV's would be everywhere, including roads, trails, and even off trail in areas that are not open to ATV use. People don't seem to know how to follow the rules and that is probably why the policies on ATV use in this state are so strict. In states like Idaho that have less people, they can probably afford to have more liberal rules just because the resource damage won't get out of hand quite as quickly as it could in a highly populated state such as ours.

[Jingles]

Yep can't ride ATV on the FS Roads or even the State roads here in WA because they aren't street legal but they can ride those Damn bicycles wherever they wan including the roads and they are no more street legal than the ATV.   Yet you have to buy an annual license for the ATV..
Gonna end before the BP gets any higher

[358NM]

Bobcat
Regarding abuse by atv/utv's to me and in my opinion enforcement is a completely separate issue. Why should enforcement be a reason to limit use? If that is the case them we should no longer license any more vehicles because people are speeding or running stop signs daily. I understand your point and yes there is some abuse. Maybe I don't see all the illegal users because the folks I ride with ride in open areas only and in Okanogan county there is a huge law enforcement presence. You would think that if illegal use were as big a problem as everyone says them why don't they have more enforcement and bigger fines for illegal use? It would mean more money for the state fund. I'm sorry but I don't agree with using lack of enforcement as an excuse for limiting legal use. Think how the anti's use the same argument for limiting second amendment rights. Sorry to disagree, just my opinion.
Jingles
I hear you on the bicycles. How about those licensed electric golf carts. Legal responsible use of atv/utv's has to be safer than riding a bicycle on a narrow winding road with cars and trucks.

[bigtex]

Bobcat
Regarding abuse by atv/utv's to me and in my opinion enforcement is a completely separate issue. Why should enforcement be a reason to limit use? If that is the case them we should no longer license any more vehicles because people are speeding or running stop signs daily. I understand your point and yes there is some abuse. Maybe I don't see all the illegal users because the folks I ride with ride in open areas only and in Okanogan county there is a huge law enforcement presence. You would think that if illegal use were as big a problem as everyone says them why don't they have more enforcement and bigger fines for illegal use?

I agree with Bobcat on the enforcement issue. We are mainly talking about USFS lands here and in this state there are several USFS ranger districts that do not have their own dedicated law enforcement officer, they essentially share an officer with a neighboring district. There was once a time where every district in this state had atleast one officer, there were also more ranger districts but as budgets have shrank over the past 10 years ranger districts have combined and the amount of officers have decreased. You now have less officers covering more lands. As far as tickets go, federal tickets written by federal officers (BLM, USFS, etc) do not go to the state, they go to the federal crime victim awareness fund. And even the tickets that are written by state or county officers they just go into the state general fund, which pays for every agency so its not like ORV tickets are going to fund ORV enforcement.

[358NM]

bigtex
My experience here in Washington with atv/utv's is pretty much limited to Okanogan County.
Most of the riding is done on state forest roads on the Loup Loup and Loomis state forest. There are some forest roads and trails also open but limited, see the Okanogan National Forest travel plan. This is also true in the Yakima Rimrock area. In Okanogan county there are also some county roads open to atv/utv use.
Regarding enforcement we see not only USFS patrols but also WDFW and county sherriff deputies also. Virtually everytime we are out. Maybe different in other areas. I really don't care who gets the money on fines and tickets that is a secondary issue. If it is the general fund so be it. Every state agency benefits in some way from the general fund. I still think lack of enforcement is not a logical reason to limit use. If that is logical then gun use should be severly restricted or banned in this state. Again this is just my opnion.

[gasman]

I am with you 358. I have spent a lot of time in th ehills in teh Yakima, Rimrock area over the years and will continue to. I have a quad, jeep and dual sport bike. i ride many trails and roads with my jeep and dual sport, and have seen very little illegal use in those areas. I am sure it happens, but not to the extent as some have others believe.

And I don't turn a blind eye. If I see illegal activity, I will be the first to educate the person and take down there information to give to the propper athorities. 

I would love to see a special lic. or endorcement to allow OHV's and UTV's on forestservice roads.

[bobcat]

This is the new law I was talking about previously. (Well not so new, it was 2004) I had to scan it as I could not find it online.

[358NM]

Thanks for posting that Bobcat, I don't think I have seen that one.
I will see what I can find out about it.

[358NM]

If you go to the Wa legislative site go to government and detailed legislative reports, pick the 2004-2005 session and enter 2356 you will get the full history and text of the bill. For some reason the final outcome of the bill in the senate is not showing, but it does appear that it passed and I believe this is part of the law that is used to allow local governments to allow atv use on city and county roads. When I get time I will look at it some more. I know the represenitive from my district was involved in this bill.

[grizzlyadams]

I see both sides of the issue. For my two cents, I would like the state to regulate or set policy regarding dsclosure of the current state laws that must be given to you and signed by you at the time of purchase of an ohv or atv. Too many dealers are outright deceiving potential buyers making them believe  you can ride most anywhere in the state. I was told so many lies when i bought mine it was rediculous.

Should I have looked into the laws myself? Absolutely! However, it is a common practice and understood come to find out that these dealers do this purposely. They should be held to the same disclosure rules as any other major purchase. Purposely misrepresenting state law to achieve a sale should be illegal!   

[bobcat]

Sure, sorry it's not so easy to read. There were actually a couple more bills that went along with that one. But it's more than I wanted to scan.

[sakoshooter]

Bobcat, I remember something about that law change because it included a definition change to what a highway was. It now reads "Public Highway - Any road, regardless of surface, maintained by public funds" in the definitions section. This was added a few years back.
It directly relates to "Prohibited Hunting Methods". "Discharging a Firearm from, across, or along the maintained portion of any public highway, regardless of surface, is prohibited except for hunters with disabilities in compliance wiht WAC 232-12-828."
It was a few years back. I can't remember exactly but that law never used to include anything but "highways" proper. Pretty much means road hunting is illegal.