No More grey area if SB-5366 passes

[japerry]

I'm not sure how this slipped through the presses, but if SB-5366 passes, ALL NON-MANAGED ORV areas will now be subject to CRIMINAL actions and subject to IMMEDIATE ARREST, a misdemeanor, and fine of $500

Its basically the same category as DUI.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 8. A new section is added to chapter 46.09 RCW to read as follows:
(1) A person may not operate a nonhighway vehicle on public lands unless the area is designated by the land manager as open for nonhighway vehicle use.
(2) A violation of this section is a misdemeanor with a penalty of five hundred dollars.

Sounds harsh? I think so.. time to call the legislators. this has made it quite a way, we need to fight this now.. if you don't want to be hauled to jail for landing on public land.

 

[skinny_pedal]

Sounds like its only an issue if your wheeler isn't street legal

 

[japerry]

In the non-highway vehicle definition, all vehicle use would be included.

Whats bad is that it doesn't discriminate between what people were doing responsibly at places like 'Old Rieter' and those doing doughnuts through a field.

So if you end up going on an unmarked trail, you could goto jail.

 

[Horus]

When does it go to a vote? This is significant, especially for the quad and dirtbike guys.

 

[Dave W]

Here's what I just sent to Senator Delvin. Should have a response by the time I get off work around 1:00...

Senator, Im getting some negatives on this. The following wording is stirring the pot a mite:

NEW SECTION. Sec. 8. A new section is added to chapter 46.09 RCW to read as follows:
(1) A person may not operate a nonhighway vehicle on public lands unless the area is designated by the land manager as open for nonhighway vehicle use.
(2) A violation of this section is a misdemeanor with a penalty of five hundred dollars.

Below is one comment from the Northwest Wheelers forum:

In the non-highway vehicle definition, all vehicle use would be included.
Whats bad is that it doesn't discriminate between what people were doing responsibly at places like 'Old Rieter' and those doing doughnuts through a field.
So if you end up going on an unmarked trail, you could goto jail.

May I ask the intent? This popped up this morning, and I expect by the time I get home early afternoon, there's likely to be quite a bit of comment. One of the gang has likened it to being in the same catagory as a DUI. Not sure on that, buts it's on the radar, and not in a good way.

Thanks,
Dave

 

[Dave W]

History of the Bill
as of Tuesday, February 7, 2012 3:55 AM


Sponsors: Senators Delvin, Hewitt, Stevens
Companion Bill: HB 1203

2011 REGULAR SESSION
Jan 21 First reading, referred to Transportation. (View Original Bill)
Jan 26 Public hearing in the Senate Committee on Transportation at 3:30 PM. (Committee Materials)
Feb 2 Executive action taken in the Senate Committee on Transportation at 3:30 PM. (Committee Materials)
Feb 3 TRAN - Majority; 1st substitute bill be substituted, do pass. (View 1st Substitute) (Majority Report)
Minority; do not pass. (Minority Report)
Passed to Rules Committee for second reading.
Feb 10 Made eligible to be placed on second reading.
Feb 22 Placed on second reading by Rules Committee.
Mar 3 1st substitute bill substituted (TRAN 11). (View 1st Substitute)
Floor amendment(s) adopted.
Rules suspended. Placed on Third Reading.
Third reading, passed; yeas, 41; nays, 5; absent, 0; excused, 3. (View Roll Calls) (View 1st Engrossed)
IN THE HOUSE
Mar 5 First reading, referred to Transportation.
Mar 23 Public hearing in the House Committee on Transportation at 3:30 PM. (Committee Materials)
Mar 30 Executive session scheduled, but no action was taken in the House Committee on Transportation at 1:30 PM. (Committee Materials)
Apr 22 By resolution, returned to Senate Rules Committee for third reading.
2011 1ST SPECIAL SESSION
IN THE SENATE
Apr 26 By resolution, reintroduced and retained in present status.
2011 2ND SPECIAL SESSION
Nov 28 By resolution, reintroduced and retained in present status.
Dec 7 Rules Committee relieved of further consideration. On motion, referred to Transportation.
2012 REGULAR SESSION
Jan 9 By resolution, reintroduced and retained in present status.
Jan 23 Public hearing in the Senate Committee on Transportation at 3:30 PM. (Committee Materials)
Jan 31 Executive action taken in the Senate Committee on Transportation at 3:30 PM. (Committee Materials)
Feb 1 TRAN - Majority; 2nd substitute bill be substituted, do pass. (View 2nd Substitute) (Majority Report)
Feb 2 Passed to Rules Committee for second reading.

Go to history...

 

[The_Shocker]

It is the same **** they pulled last year....



http://nw-wheelers.com/forum/showthread.php?t=60490&highlight=5366

 

[Tod]

This bill is now before the Senate Rules Committee and this is just one of many flawed parts of the amended bill.

If you contact the legislature about this, keep in mind reasons why they should oppose 5366, not just reasons you don't like it.

Some of the Legislators do not like ORV and if they get the impression that this bill has become anti-ORV that could actually make them more likely to support it.


Senate Rules Committee email addresses:

[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]



And some reasons I gave them to not like SB5366:


Firstly, I am concerned about the license plate revenue, the lack of ORV permit requirements and the exemption from Discover Pass requirements.

The revenue from the license plate sales would not go to state transportation purposes, but instead go to counties for the purpose of studies and signage. Nothing to support the State

 

[Dave W]

Okay, here's Delvin's answer:

I knew you would. This was put in for trout unlimited guy who brought up some good points and takes away their argument against the bill and so now they are supporting the bill.



Senator Jerome Delvin
8th Legislative District



Gonna let the Senator read Tod's post. Not liking this...

 

[japerry]

The big concern to me is the idea that undesignated areas will be illegal. So the plethora of logging road are now off limits because they're undesignated.

Currently ORV use is allowed on undesignated raods unless signed closed.

But worse, we need to remember that all ORV parks in this state started as user built trail systems. I think people tend to forget about that. This law, if passed, would make any user built trail system illegal. DNR would no longer need to work with user groups to make ORV parks, they could just call the sheriff and have you arrested.

While I understand what trout unlimited wants, and I somewhat agree, this section goes too far.

 

[japerry]

RCW 46.09.310
Definitions.

(8) "Nonhighway vehicle" means any motorized vehicle including an ORV when used for recreational purposes on nonhighway roads, trails, or a variety of other natural terrain.

Nonhighway vehicle does not include:

(a) Any vehicle designed primarily for travel on, over, or in the water;

(b) Snowmobiles or any military vehicles; or

(c) Any vehicle eligible for a motor vehicle fuel tax exemption or rebate under chapter 82.36 RCW while an exemption or rebate is claimed. This exemption includes but is not limited to farm, construction, and logging vehicles.

 

[Tod]

RCW 46.09.310
Definitions.

(8) "Nonhighway vehicle" means any motorized vehicle including an ORV when used for recreational purposes on nonhighway roads, trails, or a variety of other natural terrain.

Nonhighway vehicle does not include:

(a) Any vehicle designed primarily for travel on, over, or in the water;

(b) Snowmobiles or any military vehicles; or

(c) Any vehicle eligible for a motor vehicle fuel tax exemption or rebate under chapter 82.36 RCW while an exemption or rebate is claimed. This exemption includes but is not limited to farm, construction, and logging vehicles.

Every vehicle while being used for recreation on every DNR managed road that is not part of a designated recreation area unless the land manager goes out of his way to approve it.

 

[japerry]

Delvin is checking with DNR about the wording. My guess is that DNR will love it. It means that instead of working with user groups, they can just call the cops.

Thus there will be little incentive to try to work with us... I think people have forgotten how all our ORV parks came to life in the first place.

 

[The_Shocker]

Okay, here's Delvin's answer:

I knew you would. This was put in for trout unlimited guy who brought up some good points and takes away their argument against the bill and so now they are supporting the bill.



Senator Jerome Delvin
8th Legislative District



Gonna let the Senator read Tod's post. Not liking this...

This guy can't be trusted. He is the one who organized a field trip to see the "Destruction" caused at Reiter. :looser:

 

[japerry]

interesting. It looks like Tod helped champion the 50" provision so buggies and other larger 4x4s wouldn't be allowed on the roads.

http://www.tvw.org/index.php?option=com_tvwplayer&eventID=2011011182

 

[nowires]

This guy can't be trusted. He is the one who organized a field trip to see the "Destruction" caused at Reiter. :looser:

Ya that kind of back fired on Greg. But Greg is all about the quads and the ability to use them in hunting to get in the back country

interesting. It looks like Tod helped champion the 50" provision so buggies and other larger 4x4s wouldn't be allowed on the roads.

http://www.tvw.org/index.php?option=com_tvwplayer&eventID=2011011182

Hmmmmmmmmm

 

[Tod]

interesting. It looks like Tod helped champion the 50" provision so buggies and other larger 4x4s wouldn't be allowed on the roads.

http://www.tvw.org/index.php?option=com_tvwplayer&eventID=2011011182

YIKES!!!

Pat totally misconstrued my input.
I was asked how to define an ATV versus all OHV.

What I told him was that ATV were typically under 1000 lb or less than 50 inches wide. I never recommended to exclude them. In fact I was one of the few that want at least side by sides included. Turns out WSP was going to go full out against the bill if it included anything similar to an automobile that did not meet the existing automobile safety standards. The people pushing 1203 wanted it to move forward so they misuse my words. Thank you fro bringing this to my attention.


I did not provide testimony on 1203 in 2011, but I did on the Senate equivalent, 5366 in 2011, see below:



Please vote YES on SB5366 (Authorizing the use of off-road vehicles on public roadways under certain conditions or in certain areas).

This bill would allow limited use of all-terrain vehicles on public roadways under certain conditions.

SB5366 is now before the House Transportation Committee.

It would allow limited use of ATV on certain roads with common sense safety equipment and liability insurance requirements. This would increase recreational opportunities without costing the State any money. With limited road access it would allow motorized trail users to connect trails that have been fragmented by road building and timber harvesting. It would also facilitate access to small rural towns where their visits help the local economy.

Additionally, people with limited mobility will benefit from this legislation.

Idaho allows similar road use and it has shown to be safe and a great benefit to recreationalists and the local communities.

 

[dirtygoat]

Hmmmmm... User groups lobbying against user groups and the powers that be are happy to cherry pick...

 

[Tod]

Hmmmmm... User groups lobbying against user groups and the powers that be are happy to cherry pick...

No! Dealerships that sell quads narrowing the focus of a bill to suit them.
Both dirt bikes and 4x4 were excluded.
If I didn't advocate for 4x4, I seriously doubt WOHVA would tolerate me for a second.

It's OK, I've been accused as being anti-eastern WA and earlier today I was accused of being anti-western WA. Now anti-4x4. I could just say ****it, do it yourself and go play, sure would be a shitload more fun than defending ORV use (for free).

 

[dirtygoat]

First off, I never singled you out...

Secondly, I don't spend my time focusing on other user groups, just mine...

Thirdly, do whatever floats your boat... I get involved in what I feel I need to...