The DNR is a timber company and right now they have no money or staff for ORV areas. I would be happy to pay $10 a day to keep these exisisting areas open. Maybe if the liability laws are changed, they will allow volunteers to build more challenging trails because right now they are telling us that is the limiting factor.
-
Help Support Hardline Crawlers :
DNR Immunity Law email campaign
- Thread starter japerry
- Start date
The DNR is a timber company and right now they have no money or staff for ORV areas. I would be happy to pay $10 a day to keep these exisisting areas open. Maybe if the liability laws are changed, they will allow volunteers to build more challenging trails because right now they are telling us that is the limiting factor.
Binder
Well-Known Member
I'm not saying that charging money is necessarily a bad thing. It just seems as though someone has tried to sell this thing as a law that will change liability when in fact it won't change a thing about liabilities. It's only about money.
As far as agencies using liabilities as a excuse for not building trails it's just that, an excuse and a bad one at that. Read the law I posted. Liabilities are limited right now by the law currently on the books. Man made obstacles are the only issue with the current law and that's not set to change with the proposed changes.
Unless I've missed something in which case I would like for someone to point me in the right direction...:redneck:
Binder
Well-Known Member
And BTW we won't be paying $10 a day it will be $50 a day..
japerry
Well-Known Member
I don't know where you could possibly getting that info from. User fees in other agencies around the state have varied from $5-$25 a YEAR. Oregon has fees of $10 for every two years.
Hardcore ORV parks charge $20 a day.
Its not going to be $50 a day. Maybe per year.... but even thats a stretch.
japerry
Well-Known Member
Yup, you're totally right about this. The changes they're looking to make has nothing to do about limiting liability for obstacles. IF DNR can charge money, great. will this change their unspoken 'policy' of open/open, 32s' on most trails? nope.
Binder
Well-Known Member
I quoted it in post 80, it's definately per day...:;
And here's a snip from the law showing what they're changing from $20 to $50...
Last edited:
Mark m.
Well-Known Member
I would be will to pay $50 a day if I could use all the trails at reiter. How can the motorcycle guys lease land from the DNR to use and we can't? Isn't that pay to play?
Binder
Well-Known Member
Have you tied to lease land from the DNR? ..
I have mixed feelings about the $50 and I think there should be more boundries on that too....So $50 a day per personand 365 days a year....They could feasably charge you $18,250 for a annual pass.
uke:Of course nobody would pay that but if they wanted to play games this could be used to "close" a ORV area when it's technically open.
Duck Dodgers
Well-Known Member
Would they be able to charge a "Fee" when they are already charging for ORV permits and not to mention the gas tax that is suppose to go into the NOVA fund just for these types of use?
Seeming like double dipping to me.
My understanding with the trail access policy of DNR is that you can have a difficult trail, you just need to have a bypass that less equipped rigs can use to circumvent the difficult part. That policy is part of the access for all rigs position they have taken.
Seeming like double dipping to me.
My understanding with the trail access policy of DNR is that you can have a difficult trail, you just need to have a bypass that less equipped rigs can use to circumvent the difficult part. That policy is part of the access for all rigs position they have taken.
Last edited:
Binder
Well-Known Member
Yes, both are specifically allowed in the law.
after talking to Mark Maureen on sat. I dont think that whole leasing thing for the bikes is going anywhere. as far as the trails at reiter its a enviromental impact issue for the most part not a liability one.
dirk
Well-Known Member
Yes...I understand that, but see no harm in mentioning this issue.
I am sure the 2 companion bills (SB 6237 & HB 2480) will see a few changes before anything is signed...maybe they will consider our point, as long as they are in there looking at the immunity laws.
The DNR is worried about how they are going to pay for facilities, but I think they also need to worry about building something we actually have an interest in maintaining.
As I read them, the 2 bills will do the following:
- Allow the DNR to charge fees for use
- Allow the DNR initiate two private concessionaire pilot projects...one on each side of the mountains
- Develop and implement a multiagency pass for all DNR, Department of Fish and Wildlife and State Parks facilities (also looking into combining it with the NW Forest Pass)
- Allow the DNR to charge no more than $25 bucks per day for access to a public ORV Sports Park (which is defined as a facility designed to accommodate competitive ORV recreational uses including, but not limited to, motocross racing, four-wheel drive competitions, and flat track racing. Use of ORV sports parks can be competitive or noncompetitive in nature.)
Sounds like the public installation of rock anchors does not affect the landowner liability for climbers. Also sounds like a manmade obstacle could be possible with the proper signage...am I reading that correctly?
Binder
Well-Known Member
That's all a matter of interpretation. This part of the law is left unchanged.....The way I understand it (and I'm no one) is if the DNR built or had a man made obstacle built and knew it was hazardous they would be wise to have insurance for that obstacle and could charge more than $50 a day for use. Also proper signage would be required.
japerry
Well-Known Member
A few years ago, the rock climbing community rallied DNR / Legislature to exempt them from the liability of rock climbing. If you go online and read the statute, you'll notice that there is a provision that says its only applicable to rock climbing.
dirk
Well-Known Member
Where did the $50 fee come from...I thought the bill said up to $25 per day for an ORV Sports Park? I think the signage thing is an option, but everytime I have asked the DNR about it they have said it won't work. I am not sure if that is legally true or if they are just scared to get sued.
Exactly...why can't we do the same regarding our specific form of recreation? We could really create some fun stuff, if we were allowed to get creative with materials. Maybe we should start a dialog with our elected officials.
Binder
Well-Known Member
The way I understand it they can charge as much as they want, always could. As the law reads now they can charge up to $20 a day before getting into the next higher liability bracket. The new bill raises this bracket to $50.....
What I get out of all of this is the intent of is allowing people to recreate on land while protecting the landowner from unforseen liabilities so long as they don't charge more than $50 a day. If they charge more than that then it's probably a business for profit and needs to cover their ass.
