Post by: Skyvalhunter on May 18, 2011, 12:05:44 PM
www.fs.fed.us/r6/okawen/travel-management (http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/okawen/travel-management)
Post by: mebco09 on May 18, 2011, 03:29:26 PM
You know, we could save a lot of time and money in this state if they just allowed the use of ATVs on county roads like in many other western states. Then there would be no need to make up "travel management maps". :twocents:
Post by: norsepeak on May 18, 2011, 04:09:02 PM
Post by: mebco09 on May 19, 2011, 01:04:00 PM
Exactly! We've been saying that for years. You go to other states and they encourage ATV's on the forest service roads because it means REVENUE! People will spend money to travel to other areas/states to vacation and ride ATV's but they can't do that here. Crazy.
Not to jack the thread, but...
How hard would it be for an ATV manufacturer to make a street legal machine? I see those Bombardier trikes that are street legal, kind of the same concept in reverse. Whatever manufacturer comes up with the first one will sell the heck out of them. I bet you could double the price of an off-road unit and people would still buy them.
Post by: 358NM on May 20, 2011, 09:23:36 AM
Post by: bigtex on May 20, 2011, 09:25:52 AM
Adopting a state law similar to the law Idaho adopted in January 2010 would be a good start for Washington. In Idaho you can purchase a restricted vehicle license plate for your ATV or side by side and ride on virtually any road, city, state, county, BLM and USFS except freeways and some other minor restrictions, as well as speed limitations. When you buy your license you sign a form stating your vehicle meets the requirements listed in the law. If you are stopped and you don't meet the requirements, you get a ticket. No inspections, only your personal responsibility. I even had the forest service guy help me unload my RZR in a forest service campground last summer. Try that in Washington and see what the ticket is. Responsible use of AT V's and enforcement is the key. I can see where this type of law may not work in some areas on the west side. I think it would be very workable in the rest of the state.
:yeah:
Also in Idaho adults don't even need to wear a helmet. I believe only those under 12/13 do.
Post by: netcoyote on May 20, 2011, 06:20:09 PM
Quote
Also in Idaho adults don't even need to wear a helmet. I believe only those under 12/13 do.Compare that to WA. Last fall I was unloading my quad up at Evans Creek and a couple guys warned me about the ranger roaming around recently. They told me a guy got a ticket for not wearing a helmet while backing a quad off a trailer! Pretty chicken-s**t if you ask me.
Post by: bobcat on May 20, 2011, 06:54:20 PM
Adopting a state law similar to the law Idaho adopted in January 2010 would be a good start for Washington. In Idaho you can purchase a restricted vehicle license plate for your ATV or side by side and ride on virtually any road, city, state, county, BLM and USFS except freeways and some other minor restrictions, as well as speed limitations. When you buy your license you sign a form stating your vehicle meets the requirements listed in the law. If you are stopped and you don't meet the requirements, you get a ticket. No inspections, only your personal responsibility. I even had the forest service guy help me unload my RZR in a forest service campground last summer. Try that in Washington and see what the ticket is. Responsible use of AT V's and enforcement is the key. I can see where this type of law may not work in some areas on the west side. I think it would be very workable in the rest of the state.
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.
Post by: bigtex on May 20, 2011, 07:05:16 PM
QuoteAlso in Idaho adults don't even need to wear a helmet. I believe only those under 12/13 do.Compare that to WA. Last fall I was unloading my quad up at Evans Creek and a couple guys warned me about the ranger roaming around recently. They told me a guy got a ticket for not wearing a helmet while backing a quad off a trailer! Pretty chicken-s**t if you ask me.
There is a federal USFS Officer (law enforcement in the USFS are officers not rangers, USFS rangers are non-LE workers) that works USFS land off of the SR 410/165 area including Evans Creek. He is very Law Enforcement minded and has no problem writing tickets for small violations. He can write federal tickets while on federal land and the Pierce County Sheriff has given him the authority to act as a county deputy anywhere in the county.
Post by: bigtex on May 20, 2011, 07:23:39 PM
Adopting a state law similar to the law Idaho adopted in January 2010 would be a good start for Washington. In Idaho you can purchase a restricted vehicle license plate for your ATV or side by side and ride on virtually any road, city, state, county, BLM and USFS except freeways and some other minor restrictions, as well as speed limitations. When you buy your license you sign a form stating your vehicle meets the requirements listed in the law. If you are stopped and you don't meet the requirements, you get a ticket. No inspections, only your personal responsibility. I even had the forest service guy help me unload my RZR in a forest service campground last summer. Try that in Washington and see what the ticket is. Responsible use of AT V's and enforcement is the key. I can see where this type of law may not work in some areas on the west side. I think it would be very workable in the rest of the state.
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.
And that’s where the issue is with federal land management agencies, each management unit (national forest, national park, wildlife refuge, etc) is essentially its own kingdom. It’s not like with WDFW or DNR lands where basically the rules are the same (maybe some minor differences) no matter where you are in the state. With the feds there are some basic agency rules (such as not leaving a campfire burning unattended) that are nationwide, but the majority of them are local rules that are made by the local park superintendent/forest supervisor/BLM district manager. So basically whatever the top guy of the park/forest/refuge thinks should be “right/legal” is what the law is. So with these agencies there are constantly changing regulations as the top boss of the unit changes. And this is why what may be legal on the Olympic National Forest is illegal on the Mt Baker-Snoqualmie or Okanogan-Wenatchee.
So for example if the forest supervisor of the Olympic National Forest doesn’t like ATV’s then he can heavily restrict the usage of them on that forest. But if the supervisor of the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie loves ATV’s then he can loosen the restrictions on the usage of them. And this is perfectly legal under the Code of Federal Regulations (basically the WAC for the federal government) which allows the forest supervisor to adopt rules for their forest.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on May 21, 2011, 06:17:19 PM
Adopting a state law similar to the law Idaho adopted in January 2010 would be a good start for Washington. In Idaho you can purchase a restricted vehicle license plate for your ATV or side by side and ride on virtually any road, city, state, county, BLM and USFS except freeways and some other minor restrictions, as well as speed limitations. When you buy your license you sign a form stating your vehicle meets the requirements listed in the law. If you are stopped and you don't meet the requirements, you get a ticket. No inspections, only your personal responsibility. I even had the forest service guy help me unload my RZR in a forest service campground last summer. Try that in Washington and see what the ticket is. Responsible use of AT V's and enforcement is the key. I can see where this type of law may not work in some areas on the west side. I think it would be very workable in the rest of the state.
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.
And that’s where the issue is with federal land management agencies, each management unit (national forest, national park, wildlife refuge, etc) is essentially its own kingdom. It’s not like with WDFW or DNR lands where basically the rules are the same (maybe some minor differences) no matter where you are in the state. With the feds there are some basic agency rules (such as not leaving a campfire burning unattended) that are nationwide, but the majority of them are local rules that are made by the local park superintendent/forest supervisor/BLM district manager. So basically whatever the top guy of the park/forest/refuge thinks should be “right/legal” is what the law is. So with these agencies there are constantly changing regulations as the top boss of the unit changes. And this is why what may be legal on the Olympic National Forest is illegal on the Mt Baker-Snoqualmie or Okanogan-Wenatchee.
So for example if the forest supervisor of the Olympic National Forest doesn’t like ATV’s then he can heavily restrict the usage of them on that forest. But if the supervisor of the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie loves ATV’s then he can loosen the restrictions on the usage of them. And this is perfectly legal under the Code of Federal Regulations (basically the WAC for the federal government) which allows the forest supervisor to adopt rules for their forest.
Seems it's about time that we get some folks in congress to remedy this, as they have attempted with the wolf issue. Leaf lickers don't like consistency though
Post by: bigtex on May 21, 2011, 06:45:16 PM
Adopting a state law similar to the law Idaho adopted in January 2010 would be a good start for Washington. In Idaho you can purchase a restricted vehicle license plate for your ATV or side by side and ride on virtually any road, city, state, county, BLM and USFS except freeways and some other minor restrictions, as well as speed limitations. When you buy your license you sign a form stating your vehicle meets the requirements listed in the law. If you are stopped and you don't meet the requirements, you get a ticket. No inspections, only your personal responsibility. I even had the forest service guy help me unload my RZR in a forest service campground last summer. Try that in Washington and see what the ticket is. Responsible use of AT V's and enforcement is the key. I can see where this type of law may not work in some areas on the west side. I think it would be very workable in the rest of the state.
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.
And that’s where the issue is with federal land management agencies, each management unit (national forest, national park, wildlife refuge, etc) is essentially its own kingdom. It’s not like with WDFW or DNR lands where basically the rules are the same (maybe some minor differences) no matter where you are in the state. With the feds there are some basic agency rules (such as not leaving a campfire burning unattended) that are nationwide, but the majority of them are local rules that are made by the local park superintendent/forest supervisor/BLM district manager. So basically whatever the top guy of the park/forest/refuge thinks should be “right/legal” is what the law is. So with these agencies there are constantly changing regulations as the top boss of the unit changes. And this is why what may be legal on the Olympic National Forest is illegal on the Mt Baker-Snoqualmie or Okanogan-Wenatchee.
So for example if the forest supervisor of the Olympic National Forest doesn’t like ATV’s then he can heavily restrict the usage of them on that forest. But if the supervisor of the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie loves ATV’s then he can loosen the restrictions on the usage of them. And this is perfectly legal under the Code of Federal Regulations (basically the WAC for the federal government) which allows the forest supervisor to adopt rules for their forest.
Seems it's about time that we get some folks in congress to remedy this, as they have attempted with the wolf issue. Leaf lickers don't like consistency though
Actually congress has nothing to do with the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Congress makes rules that are apart of the United States Code (USC). It’s similar to how the Washington Legislature makes RCW’s while state agencies/commissions make WAC’s. Federal agencies make CFR’s. Essentially what happens with the creation of a CFR is that the agency proposes the rule then the Secretary of the federal department that the agency belongs to signs off on the regulation and thus becomes law. With the Forest Service it is the Secretary of Agriculture that is the final decision maker, with BLM, USFWS, NPS and several other agencies it is the Secretary of the Interior.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on May 21, 2011, 08:40:15 PM
Post by: bigtex on May 21, 2011, 09:12:41 PM
So your telling us we need a conservative at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue naming our next secretaries of agriculture, and interior, eh?
Actually not even to that extent because it's not the actual Secretary that makes up the laws, they just sign off on them. Basically their agency heads (director of BLM, USFS, etc) puts the proposal in front of them, saying thats what the agency wants and the secretary signs it. What we need is somebody that is the director (or even regional directors) of USFS, BLM, USFWS to have the same ideas that we have. Then they can change the way their agency works by hiring people for Forest Supervisor positions or BLM District Managers with the same mentality as us. Washingtons management is under a different region then Idaho, maybe thats where the difference lays :dunno: . Here is the regional makeup of the USFS: http://www.fs.fed.us/contactus/regions.shtml (http://www.fs.fed.us/contactus/regions.shtml)
Post by: mebco09 on May 22, 2011, 12:21:00 PM
Bobcat- Can you post that RCW #? It can't be as liberal as Idaho's, can it?
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.
Where I have run into trouble with the laws in Chelan Co. is that whoever pulls you over, says it is the jurisdiction of another government agency and they are just enforcing their rules. For example, I got a ticket on my XR250 (no plate) for running it on a road within the Wenatchee Nat'l Forest, that also happened to be a "county road". This was by a County Sherriff. A few years later, I get stopped (no ticket this time, just a warning) on a spur road off the same County Rd. This time I had a License plate on the same XR250, but the ticket was for no ORV tag on an ORV trail, with a licensed bike. This was by a USFS Ranger (woman). Wouldn't it be nice if all the laws were consistent and you didn't have to guess?!?
Post by: bobcat on May 22, 2011, 03:08:07 PM
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.
Post by: 358NM on May 23, 2011, 01:18:11 PM
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.
Post by: bobcat on May 23, 2011, 06:56:34 PM
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.
Post by: Jingles on May 23, 2011, 09:44:37 PM
Gonna end before the BP gets any higher
Post by: 358NM on May 24, 2011, 09:08:46 AM
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.
Post by: bigtex on May 24, 2011, 09:57:55 AM
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.
Post by: 358NM on May 24, 2011, 10:36:59 AM
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.
Post by: gasman on May 24, 2011, 06:12:00 PM
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.
Post by: bobcat on May 25, 2011, 11:30:21 PM
Post by: 358NM on May 26, 2011, 07:46:18 AM
I will see what I can find out about it.
Post by: 358NM on May 26, 2011, 08:05:31 AM
Post by: grizzlyadams on May 26, 2011, 09:09:59 AM
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! :twocents:
Post by: bobcat on May 26, 2011, 07:02:38 PM
Post by: sakoshooter on May 27, 2011, 09:21:39 AM
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.