x2!
OHV rules/registration to be enforced
- Thread starter Caribou Sandstorm
- Start date
x2!
I'm glad to see a couple more guys jump in to this. I honestly don't know where to stand.. think of volunteering- it's fun when we do cool stuff like spread hay, greet folks, put up kiosks.. but when those tasks turn to closing off routes, I understandably get a little less interested. Especially if I can't grasp the logic in closing them. So now I'm going to dump funds into something I hope puts up info kiosks, builds restrooms, parking areas.. but when/if those funds end up putting up a gate to close what used to be one of my favorite spots, I'm going to be more than a little bummed.
I'll toss out Jones Pass as an example- most of the "fun stuff" off of that main road are now closed. for what? It's not private land, not someone's watershed, was hardly even used from what I could tell. So now all that traffic gets diverted to the main road, and new illegal routes get created.. run up there some time and tell me if it was better or worse before they closed the upper section- last spur to the right before the first big switchback. I guess I'm saying I don't completely trust my government's appropriation of my new OHV dollars.. imagine that.
I'll toss out Jones Pass as an example- most of the "fun stuff" off of that main road are now closed. for what? It's not private land, not someone's watershed, was hardly even used from what I could tell. So now all that traffic gets diverted to the main road, and new illegal routes get created.. run up there some time and tell me if it was better or worse before they closed the upper section- last spur to the right before the first big switchback. I guess I'm saying I don't completely trust my government's appropriation of my new OHV dollars.. imagine that.
wesintl
Moderator
imho.. toll roads.. they suck
ttubb
0
Ohv
Am I reading this wrong? This states :
"Colorado Laws
The use of OHVs on public lands is subject to Colorado law.
Licensed, street-legal 4WDs, and motorcycles
No additional registration is required." See this from BLM.....
http://www.blm.gov/co/st/en/fo/ufo/recreation/ohv-facts.html
I buy a sticker for my ATV, but not my licensed vehicles. T
Am I reading this wrong? This states :
"Colorado Laws
The use of OHVs on public lands is subject to Colorado law.
Licensed, street-legal 4WDs, and motorcycles
No additional registration is required." See this from BLM.....
http://www.blm.gov/co/st/en/fo/ufo/recreation/ohv-facts.html
I buy a sticker for my ATV, but not my licensed vehicles. T
yes Terry the issue is there appears to be a big contradiction here. You can either believe this:
from http://staythetrail.org/news/?p=643
Or believe this:
from http://www.blm.gov/co/st/en/fo/ufo/recreation/ohv-facts.html
ttubb
0
I guess the issue is "designated OHV routes"......
I printed a copy of the link listed above and will carry it with my in all my vehicles....Maybe this will help. T
I printed a copy of the link listed above and will carry it with my in all my vehicles....Maybe this will help. T
Caribou Sandstorm
Hard Core 4+
I was just up there end of June, the rangers were super nice, admitted their focus and jurisdiction was mostly for ohv vehicles like quads.
Anyway, they gave me a stack of new Alpine loop maps, which detail some additional trails, I was not aware of. If anyone wants one before you head up the next, let me know.
Old40Dog
Rising Sun Member
Chris,
I'd like to get at least one before the Ouray Run Labor Day weekend. Maybe at the Rally...Thanks!
60wag
Rising Sun Member
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2005
- Messages
- 2,610
The issue was discussed at the Boulder Ranger District meeting yesterday. A rep from Stay the Trail was there. I still find it confusing but here is what I gathered from the discussion:
1. the issue is based on a 1991 Colorado law that unclear in it's definition of both OHVs and OHV routes.
2. It applies to all public land in Colorado - both state parks and federal land.
3. They are doing a year of public awareness before actually issuing citations. I don't know when the year starts.
4. the law, as written may be interpreted to include road legal plated full size vehicles and plated motorcycles. It may also include all routes shown on the MVUM - which is clearly nuts because there are numerous county roads shown on the maps.
My take on the whole issue is that it will take someone to fight an issued citation to force the state to clarify the language in the law.
1. the issue is based on a 1991 Colorado law that unclear in it's definition of both OHVs and OHV routes.
2. It applies to all public land in Colorado - both state parks and federal land.
3. They are doing a year of public awareness before actually issuing citations. I don't know when the year starts.
4. the law, as written may be interpreted to include road legal plated full size vehicles and plated motorcycles. It may also include all routes shown on the MVUM - which is clearly nuts because there are numerous county roads shown on the maps.
My take on the whole issue is that it will take someone to fight an issued citation to force the state to clarify the language in the law.
Caribou Sandstorm
Hard Core 4+
You got it Dave!
sank
0
Hi Friends,
Man, I wish i was at the BRD meeting yesterday for the discussion!! Head over to the FJ forums to see my second posting detailing the issue from my legal perspective. I am not a lawyer, it is not legal advice.
I contacted Mr. Metsa at Colorado State Parks and he confirmed that the educational program is only happening, and I quote, "on 'trails', and not 'roads' as shown on a FS MVUM. Colorado does have a few routes that are 'trails open to all vehicles' which full-size vehicles are allowed on. Not all FS units have any." He cautioned that FS or BLM officers may not take the same position as State Parks. The BLM won't cite you, as their website is clear on the issue, and I personally believe NFS employees will be cautious and not aggressive on this, as it is a state law, not a federal one. If an NFS officer cited me incorrectly, we would definitely have to finish the discussion in front of a judge, in which I could bring up the federal definition of a "Forest Highway".
So I poked around some MVUMs (easy access at: Stay The Trail Colorado - Where To Go - Forest Service Motor Vehicle Use Maps) by quickly looking at the map legends. Clear Creek FS district MVUM shows no trails at all, only roads. Forest ranger districts: Pike's Peak, Canyon Lakes, Sulfur North and South, South Park, and South Platte East and West all have trails only open to < 50" vehicles, so they don't apply to cars, trucks, and jeeps that don't fit. The only place in the entire front range where there is a trail that fits a full size vehicle is the Jenny Creek Trail, in the Boulder Ranger District. Even Lefthand OHV park has no trails for full-size vehicles; the trails in Lefthand are for motorcycles. Everything else in BRD is a road.
So in my opinion, you should get an OHV sticker on your plated highway rig to show your support for the Jenny Creek Trail, but you should know it's the only place it will be required to be legal in the front range. I did not check the western slope for other possible exceptions but there are a few.
Of course, if you have a dual-sport moto, you'll need the sticker to ride the trails open to width < 50" vehicles.
Man, I wish i was at the BRD meeting yesterday for the discussion!! Head over to the FJ forums to see my second posting detailing the issue from my legal perspective. I am not a lawyer, it is not legal advice.
I contacted Mr. Metsa at Colorado State Parks and he confirmed that the educational program is only happening, and I quote, "on 'trails', and not 'roads' as shown on a FS MVUM. Colorado does have a few routes that are 'trails open to all vehicles' which full-size vehicles are allowed on. Not all FS units have any." He cautioned that FS or BLM officers may not take the same position as State Parks. The BLM won't cite you, as their website is clear on the issue, and I personally believe NFS employees will be cautious and not aggressive on this, as it is a state law, not a federal one. If an NFS officer cited me incorrectly, we would definitely have to finish the discussion in front of a judge, in which I could bring up the federal definition of a "Forest Highway".
So I poked around some MVUMs (easy access at: Stay The Trail Colorado - Where To Go - Forest Service Motor Vehicle Use Maps) by quickly looking at the map legends. Clear Creek FS district MVUM shows no trails at all, only roads. Forest ranger districts: Pike's Peak, Canyon Lakes, Sulfur North and South, South Park, and South Platte East and West all have trails only open to < 50" vehicles, so they don't apply to cars, trucks, and jeeps that don't fit. The only place in the entire front range where there is a trail that fits a full size vehicle is the Jenny Creek Trail, in the Boulder Ranger District. Even Lefthand OHV park has no trails for full-size vehicles; the trails in Lefthand are for motorcycles. Everything else in BRD is a road.
So in my opinion, you should get an OHV sticker on your plated highway rig to show your support for the Jenny Creek Trail, but you should know it's the only place it will be required to be legal in the front range. I did not check the western slope for other possible exceptions but there are a few.
Of course, if you have a dual-sport moto, you'll need the sticker to ride the trails open to width < 50" vehicles.
sank
0
From my post in the FJ forums, before I talked to Mr. Metsa. Since it reads the law, it's still valid. And Mr Metsa was able to confirm and clarify (which I posted above).
-----------------
...Colorado doesn't require license-plated street legal vehicles to have this OHV permit! MY POINT is that this is a misinterpretation of the law. I have nothing against putting money towards trail maintenance and educational programs.
So let's look at the Colorado Revised Statues only. That is a good idea. We should really exclude FS and BLM and NPS lands, but only because Tom Metsa is a Colorado State Parks official and this whole rucass originated from his office (and also because I think the other agencies disagree with him). But since he said he is working with the larger fed agencies to find a consistent interpretation of these statues, and that your point is well taken and CO law applies to fed land in the state (in most cases) this discussion applies to all land in the state, not just state land. I think we agree on that.
As a foundation, recall that this is about an "off-highway use permit". A route cannot be a highway and a non-highway at the same time. So logically, one would assume you must be off the highway to need it. I admit, at this point, it's only an assumption.
Therefore, let's look at some Colorado law, starting at the same place Mr Metsa's office started, and going through the referenced statues and all relevant definitions:
Firstly we need to check if your vehicle needs to be registered pursuant to article 3 of title 42, CRS, or if the vehicle is from out of state. For most of us, we're not from out of state (or we wouldn't be in the CO forum). SO all we have to check is if we need registration.
Article 3 of title 42, C.R.S. (42-3-103) says, "vehicle that is primarily designed to be operated or drawn upon any highway of this state". Ok, so that includes your FJ. and all the jeeps, trucks, subarus, etc. Therefore, it is registered, and you have a license plate. Although outside the scope of this FJ discussion, a dual-sport motorcycle belongs in this as well, as it is primarily designed for highway use. More on that later.
Ok, so we're not an off-highway vehicle, because we're an on-highway vehicle. The CRS clearly states here that a vehicle can't be both an on-highway vehicle AND an off-highway vehicle.
So far so good, we all agree on what needs a license plate and what doesn't.
Secondly, we need to check if "such vehicle is being used for recreational travel upon designated off-highway vehicle routes". Recreational travel is what we do, so we just need to know if it's an off-highway route. The answer is NO ! I mentioned previously the definition of a highway. Therefore it does not apply. But, I have not proven this yet using Colorado law.
Luckily, CRS defines this route for us, which seems to be the main point of contention between me and some of you. The CRS is clear in that if the route is not designated as an "off-highway vehicle route," then we dont' need the OHV sticker.
It's easy to get confused here because we have this idea in our heads about what a highway is. CRS clearly states that an on-highway vehicle can't be an off-highway vehicle at the same time. Likewise, an on-highway route can't be an off-higway route at the same time. These are the only two options.
This CRS states that a route managed by the state for off-highway vehicle travel is an off-highway vehicle route. So, if a route is managed for on-highway vehicle travel, then this whole thing does not apply.
PUNCHLINE:
If the route is designed for you and I and the state to drive our (plated) on-highway vehicles on it, then it's obviously managed for highway vehicle travel.
I hear you asking if an off-highway vehicle is operated on a route, then it must be an off-highway route? Not true. There are many exemptions that allow off-highway vehicles to be operated on highways.
Also, in the interest of being sure of the correct answer, please let me know if you can find where Colorado specifically defines a highway, and that it is contrary to the USC definition that I gave before. http://www.michie.com/colorado
So what I'm saying, based soley on Colorado law, is that if you can drive your (plated) highway vehicle on the route, then it's managed for highway vehicle travel. If it's managed for highway vehicle travel, then it's not an off-highway route. If it's not an off-highway route, then you don't need the off-highway sticker.
Motorcycles:
The only part that really needs an interpretation is the gray area: dual-sport motorcycle. By my strict reading of the law, it is easily argued that anywhere a dual-sport motorcycle (a highway vehicle) can go, an OHV sticker is not required. This is my position (and that of the BLM page I printed and put in my rig). But I think Mr Metsa's office could easily argue that such trails that are motorcycle/atv/snowmobile - only - accessible are managed for off-highway vehicle travel, and then you'd find the only case in which a vehicle needs both a license plate and a sticker. What comes to mind for me is the < 50" trails, there are obvious signs, posts and cables in place to limit access only to vehicles that are specifically designed for off-highway use.
-----------
This is what I wrote a week ago. Mr. Metsa confirmed my position and pointed out the exception based on MVUMs.
Again, for clarification, after talking with Mr. Metsa, it appears the only route in the front range that is a trail and allows full-size rigs is Jenny Creek Trail. Everything else does not require a OHV sticker.
-----------------
...Colorado doesn't require license-plated street legal vehicles to have this OHV permit! MY POINT is that this is a misinterpretation of the law. I have nothing against putting money towards trail maintenance and educational programs.
So let's look at the Colorado Revised Statues only. That is a good idea. We should really exclude FS and BLM and NPS lands, but only because Tom Metsa is a Colorado State Parks official and this whole rucass originated from his office (and also because I think the other agencies disagree with him). But since he said he is working with the larger fed agencies to find a consistent interpretation of these statues, and that your point is well taken and CO law applies to fed land in the state (in most cases) this discussion applies to all land in the state, not just state land. I think we agree on that.
As a foundation, recall that this is about an "off-highway use permit". A route cannot be a highway and a non-highway at the same time. So logically, one would assume you must be off the highway to need it. I admit, at this point, it's only an assumption.
Therefore, let's look at some Colorado law, starting at the same place Mr Metsa's office started, and going through the referenced statues and all relevant definitions:
Let's think about this.Colorado Revised Statues said:
Firstly we need to check if your vehicle needs to be registered pursuant to article 3 of title 42, CRS, or if the vehicle is from out of state. For most of us, we're not from out of state (or we wouldn't be in the CO forum). SO all we have to check is if we need registration.
Article 3 of title 42, C.R.S. (42-3-103) says, "vehicle that is primarily designed to be operated or drawn upon any highway of this state". Ok, so that includes your FJ. and all the jeeps, trucks, subarus, etc. Therefore, it is registered, and you have a license plate. Although outside the scope of this FJ discussion, a dual-sport motorcycle belongs in this as well, as it is primarily designed for highway use. More on that later.
Colorado Revised Statues said:
Ok, so we're not an off-highway vehicle, because we're an on-highway vehicle. The CRS clearly states here that a vehicle can't be both an on-highway vehicle AND an off-highway vehicle.
So far so good, we all agree on what needs a license plate and what doesn't.
Secondly, we need to check if "such vehicle is being used for recreational travel upon designated off-highway vehicle routes". Recreational travel is what we do, so we just need to know if it's an off-highway route. The answer is NO ! I mentioned previously the definition of a highway. Therefore it does not apply. But, I have not proven this yet using Colorado law.
Luckily, CRS defines this route for us, which seems to be the main point of contention between me and some of you. The CRS is clear in that if the route is not designated as an "off-highway vehicle route," then we dont' need the OHV sticker.
Colorado Revised Statues said:
It's easy to get confused here because we have this idea in our heads about what a highway is. CRS clearly states that an on-highway vehicle can't be an off-highway vehicle at the same time. Likewise, an on-highway route can't be an off-higway route at the same time. These are the only two options.
This CRS states that a route managed by the state for off-highway vehicle travel is an off-highway vehicle route. So, if a route is managed for on-highway vehicle travel, then this whole thing does not apply.
PUNCHLINE:
If the route is designed for you and I and the state to drive our (plated) on-highway vehicles on it, then it's obviously managed for highway vehicle travel.
I hear you asking if an off-highway vehicle is operated on a route, then it must be an off-highway route? Not true. There are many exemptions that allow off-highway vehicles to be operated on highways.
There are many many many routes that the FS (a government agency with authority to do so) has managed for (plated) on-highway vehicle travel but are also designated to allow off-highway vehicle travel. The easiest example is the brown route signs in the woods tell you the allowed travel methods. So, just because an ATV is legal on the route, does not make it an off-highway route. But on the contrary, we have already shown that if the route is managed for on-highway (plated) vehicle use, then it is not an off-highway route.Colorado Revised Statues said:
Also, in the interest of being sure of the correct answer, please let me know if you can find where Colorado specifically defines a highway, and that it is contrary to the USC definition that I gave before. http://www.michie.com/colorado
So what I'm saying, based soley on Colorado law, is that if you can drive your (plated) highway vehicle on the route, then it's managed for highway vehicle travel. If it's managed for highway vehicle travel, then it's not an off-highway route. If it's not an off-highway route, then you don't need the off-highway sticker.
Motorcycles:
The only part that really needs an interpretation is the gray area: dual-sport motorcycle. By my strict reading of the law, it is easily argued that anywhere a dual-sport motorcycle (a highway vehicle) can go, an OHV sticker is not required. This is my position (and that of the BLM page I printed and put in my rig). But I think Mr Metsa's office could easily argue that such trails that are motorcycle/atv/snowmobile - only - accessible are managed for off-highway vehicle travel, and then you'd find the only case in which a vehicle needs both a license plate and a sticker. What comes to mind for me is the < 50" trails, there are obvious signs, posts and cables in place to limit access only to vehicles that are specifically designed for off-highway use.
-----------
This is what I wrote a week ago. Mr. Metsa confirmed my position and pointed out the exception based on MVUMs.
Again, for clarification, after talking with Mr. Metsa, it appears the only route in the front range that is a trail and allows full-size rigs is Jenny Creek Trail. Everything else does not require a OHV sticker.
sank
0
Maybe whomever of you has a good relationship with BRD and STT can print this page and have a friendly discussion over lunch? I work in Boulder and would be willing to attend, with my CRS book in-hand.
Cheers,
Cheers,
I have my response from the CCRD posted over here:
http://risingsun4x4club.org/forum2/showthread.php?t=16489
A question about your above post sank; just because an on-highway vehicle may travel on a route, doesn't mean that that route is maintained for on-highway vehicles (in my opinion). That's why the motorcycle is a gray area. You addressed this at the end of your post above. I think it would be more common for on-highway vehicles to travel on off-highway routes (e.g. a plated motorcycle) than for off-highway vehicles to travel on on-highway routes. In fact, I cannot think of any cases where that is allowed.
http://risingsun4x4club.org/forum2/showthread.php?t=16489
A question about your above post sank; just because an on-highway vehicle may travel on a route, doesn't mean that that route is maintained for on-highway vehicles (in my opinion). That's why the motorcycle is a gray area. You addressed this at the end of your post above. I think it would be more common for on-highway vehicles to travel on off-highway routes (e.g. a plated motorcycle) than for off-highway vehicles to travel on on-highway routes. In fact, I cannot think of any cases where that is allowed.
Red_Chili
Hard Core 4+
ATVs are allowed on road in some municipalities. That is the only exception I can think of.
sank
0
I agree that a dual-sport bike on a trail is probably the most common case.
I can also think of some places where the opposite is true. The area below Iron Clads and maybe also Bunce School road, I believe off-highway vehicles are allowed. By my interpretation of the US CODE below, those roads are technically "forest highways". Another place, up near Kingston Peak, off-highway vehicles are allowed on the "forest highway". There are plenty of places like this, I suspect.
UNITED STATES CODE said:
Cheers,
bumpity. Can someone confirm this is the correct registration form? http://www.parks.state.co.us/OHVsan.../OHVRegistrations/Pages/OHVRegistrations.aspx
nuclearlemon
Hard Core 4+
subzali;191834 I think it would be more common for on-highway vehicles to travel on off-highway routes (e.g. a plated motorcycle) than for off-highway vehicles to travel on on-highway routes. In fact said:
Looks like the form that I filled out. I did mine at Vickery Motorsports and I'm 45 days into my 60 day temporary permit and haven't received my sticker yet. My dad went into the State Parks office and got a sticker the same day.
rover67
Rising Sun Member
that's where I got mine and it took a little while for me to get mine.