Goodbye Logging roads, dispersed wheeling, WALKER VALLEY

japerry · Mar 24, 2011

Representative upthegrove brought up this nifty piece of legislation today.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/CMD/showdoc....npkJNRwh3hJC37yHk2UZOQeyY10ZfZa+hTPA==&y=2011

(3) No person may operate a nonhighway vehicle on public lands unless the area is designated by the land manager as open for nonhighway vehicle use, permission has been established, and the land manager has identified that all proper permitting, engineering, and environmental impacts have been addressed or mitigated. This subsection includes the creation, building, and development of a trail or system of trails on public land, in either an organized or unorganized manner, for the purpose of nonhighway vehicle travel. Driving a nonhighway vehicle on lands that are designated as closed to nonhighway vehicle travel by the land manager is, for the purposes of this subsection, considered a trail building activity.

(5) A violation of subsection (3) of this section is penalized as follows:
(a) A first offense is a misdemeanor with a five hundred dollar fine;
(b) A second offense is a misdemeanor with a two thousand dollar fine; and
(c) Any offense beyond a second offense is a felony with a five thousand dollar fine.

this would effectively end ORV use on all undesignated areas, including logging roads or dispersed wheeling

That kid no longer would have a $87 fine, it would be up there with stealing a car.

The end of snow wheeling unless your rig is street legal, and even then it may be considered 'off-highway'.

No more motorcycles on logging roads, no ATVs, nothing.

We need to make it VERY CLEAR to the legislative committee that this is a BAD amendment. It may very well be the most important thing we've ever had to fight.

find your legislator and send them a clear message, perhaps send a story as well, indicating your displeasure with this. While undesignated ORV use is a problem, it is a small one -- one that should be fixed with appropriate recreation areas, instead of locking us out to the few places that would be legal.

sammy toy · Mar 24, 2011

**** this state.thats a bunch of bulshit.im moving to canada.

Money Mark · Mar 24, 2011

Yikes! I wonder what the ORV leadership has to say about this? Where are you Tod?

boardbysled · Mar 24, 2011

14 (1) No person may operate a nonhighway vehicle in such a way as to endanger human life.

What I wanna know is, who decides what endangers human life? Officer descression can be a bad thing...

LiftedZuki · Mar 24, 2011

That is ridiculous. All because why? It doesn't effect the people that come up with this stupid ****. They wouldn't ever been on a logging road.

sammy toy · Mar 24, 2011

And it starts.lets here it

ain'tstuckjustresting · Mar 24, 2011

What the double fuk is this? These assholes have too much time on their hands. Lets waste time drafting pointless Legislation that will only be used (if passed) to prosecute 3 people a year as an example to the rest of us

If we don't show serious opposition for this we're doomed as nothing will get the attention of the masses.

boardbysled · Mar 24, 2011

And, this is already part of the law.

(2) In addition to the penalties provided in subsection (1) of this
18 section, the owner and/or the operator of any nonhighway vehicle shall
19 be liable for any damage to property including damage to trees, shrubs,
20 or growing crops injured as the result of travel by the nonhighway
21 vehicle. The owner of such property may recover from the person
22 responsible three times the amount of damage.

The_Shocker · Mar 24, 2011

Some people should have stayed clear of working *with* the environmental and conservation society folks. Sabotage from within is my thoughts.

Charlie, what do YOU think of this amendment?

...And $Mark, Tod is the one who sent this email alert out tonight.

sammy toy · Mar 24, 2011

JAKOB did this pass as a new law or is it in the making?

Money Mark · Mar 24, 2011

The_Shocker said:
...And $Mark, Tod is the one who sent this email alert out tonight.

I know he's on top of this stuff. :awesomework: I just like to see him here, to speak to us directly.

Clark · Mar 24, 2011

OK, buggy for sale:booo:

boardbysled · Mar 24, 2011

Money Mark said:
Yikes! I wonder what the ORV leadership has to say about this? Where are you Tod?

Its sounds like a trade off to me...

"Sure, we can ammend the bill so that it allows ORV's on certain roads, but in return, we want to eliminate ORV's from any state owned roads that are not designated."

Money Mark · Mar 24, 2011

Clark said:
OK, buggy for sale:booo:

Don't give up, but also, having the "Crash Optimism" ain't gonna work this time.

The_Shocker · Mar 24, 2011

boardbysled said:
Its sounds like a trade off to me...

"Sure, we can ammend the bill so that it allows ORV's on certain roads, but in return, we want to eliminate ORV's from any state owned roads that are not designated."

Not quite because this essentially kills the original purpose of the Bill. And this is an amendment that was just brought up so it is NOT law *yet*. We need to make some calls and send some emails so this thing dies right now and doesn't get any further.

boardbysled · Mar 24, 2011

sammy toy said:
JAKOB did this pass as a new law or is it in the making?

Its an ammendment to the current RCW's, and I believe it hasn't been voted upon yet.

Here is another ammendment that seems odd. I remember a certain greeny complaining about ORV's not having plates... Hmmmm....

(5) The department shall issue an ORV registration, ((decals))
license plates, and tabs upon receipt of:

(7) Off-road vehicle ((decals)) license plates must be affixed to
4 the front and rear of the off-road vehicle in a manner prescribed by
5 the department.

Decals being striked out, and replaced with license plates (this board doesnt support crossed out text)

japerry · Mar 24, 2011

Also, this could mean the closure of Walker Valley and Elbe. why? because they do not meet this requirement. All lider has to do is show his 'research' to goldmark and it wouldn't meet this part of the law: