PDA

View Full Version : GLFWDA Legislative Update - HB6160 and 6161



Trail_Fanatic
May 19th, 2010, 10:23 AM
Yesterday, GLFWDA, as a member of the MMRC, was asked to testify before the House Tourism & Natural Resources Committee (TNR Com.) about HB6160 and 6161.

It went well. The DNRE is withholding their support until all of the amendments have made it into print. This is key because final review of the Bills found a couple of things missing plus we had made some agreements with the Dept. at our meeting last week. Their support (or at least lack of opposition) is critical to the passage of these Bills. We do not know if we would have enough votes to get them passed if the DNRE uses their political clout against them.

I arrived in Lansing early with a copy of the attached internal Law Enforcement Division Memo (I believe most of you are familiar with it). The memo is dated and GLFWDA is uncertain if the document has been rescinded or is still in use. We have been seeing occasional ticketing (and harassing) of wheelers in contradiction of what the memo indicates.

My intention was to ask Representative Hansen's Assistant, Peter Wills' opinion about how, or even if, to proceed with trying to get it added to one of the Bills during the Amendment process. Pete walked me right into Representative Hansen's office to get his opinion too. So, I explained to them that we had an issue that I had failed to bring up during the crafting of the current Bills. I hadn't even discussed this issue with the MMRC folks yet and that due to my inexperience with the "system" a Bill must pass through, I wanted their opinion on if I should talk with the MMRC and try to get it put in as an Amendment or if the Bills were already too loaded or there were already too many amendments, etc. that it would be problematic.

Well, Mr. Hansen said (words to the effect) "I don't know. Let's go ask Joel". (Representative Sheltrown, Chairman of the House TNR Committee who's office we've been working with to get these crafted). So he walked me up to Representative Sheltrown's office where Joel, Brady (Sheltrown's Assistant who actually took the notes and did all the political errand running to get these Bills crafted) and his other Aides were having their morning meeting together. Hansen had me explain everything again to them. I gave them a copy of the Field Directive. They read it and said that it was only "common sense stuff" and that it was no problem at all to make it an Amendment . . . and so it was; before I even had a chance to run it past the MMRC!

I'll NEVER say that nothing gets done in Lansing again! Maybe not the really big stuff, but that Amendment happened in less than a half an hour!

I then went down to meet the rest of the MMRC in the lobby so that we could go back to Joel's office for our regularly scheduled 10:00am meeting. While sitting in the lobby talking with Lew Shuler (the CCC's MMRC Delegate) and waiting for the rest of the crew, I happened to look at the group next to me - at Pete Hookstra! So I put in a plug for STOPPING all the Wilderness Designations. I also talked about our off-road needs here in Michigan. After all, he just might win the Governor's race (who knows).

OK, Pete leaves and the MMRC Delegates all arrive. I tell them of the morning's happenings up in Hansen's and Sheltrown's offices and describe the content of the Directive (Brady had the only copy I'd brought with me). Lew was the only person to have an objection and that was that if conditions weren't good enough to pass in 2wd then we shouldn't be there for fear of doing damage. My reply was that IF damage were in fact being done, the DNR has the authority to cite persons for creating an erosive condition or damaging a public roadway. The mere use of 4wd doesn't indicate damage - wheel spin does. Also that the proper application of 4wd can reduce wheel spin, thereby being better for the road than traveling it in 2wd. He seemed to accept my response and was silent on the issue the rest of the day.

Back up at Sheltrown's office we reviewed possible opposition to the Bills and ranked their threat level. One of our biggest concerns would be if the USERS complain about a $30.50 sticker price.

We MUST spread the word that:


Fees haven't been raised since 1996

Consumer Price Index (CPI) calculates that after inflation $16.25 would be near $25 at today's prices

The $5.50 difference is to cover:

$1 additional for the NEW safety training program (which will now include 4x4 training!)

The rest ($4.50) is to maintain the 800 miles of new trails and route being put on the ground (of which Drummond is a portion)

We're not asking for pie in the sky. Part of the package is that the DNRE MUST publish all expenditures online for us to read. REAL receipt-based numbers, not the broad categorized type crap they've given us at the Advisory Board meetings. They WILL be held accountable for every penny of it.


We then went to the TNR Com. Meeting and answered questions. Pretty straight forward. The Q&A went well. All seemed happy with the answers they were given. As I mentioned, DNRE is neutral until the amendments are put in place, then they will support if all is as we'd covered in our meeting last week. So far, the only thing they have a problem with is the 75 event number. It's not the number they're unhappy about; it's that we want it legislated and taken out of their control. We'll have to play that one by ear and see what happens.

After the TNR Com Meeting we all went back to Sheltrown's conference room and talked with Brady some more. During conversation, Brady had the bright idea to open all Forest Roads on public lands to all OHVs like is the current situation in the U.P. ALL of the MMRC Delegates chuckled. We told him that if he can get it, GREAT! But we weren't going to hold our breath over it! He didn't understand why the DNRE would object. We laughed. His thought was to give the users more riding for their fee increase. We tried to explain our current political situation with the Department, but don't know if it sank in or not. Another "Wait and see".

Have to be back again next Tuesday for the same thing on HB6159 and 6162 (Today was just HB6160 and 6161).

I'll keep you informed of any progress.



Your humble servant,

Pat B

DDS4X4
May 19th, 2010, 05:09 PM
GREAT work Pat :thumb:
Thank you, thank you, thank you ... :yourock:

PS - Isn't it GREAT what can be found in OLd Boondockers!!!
What year was that? I can remember reading about it.

Creative Fab
May 19th, 2010, 09:17 PM
GREAT work Pat :thumb:
Thank you, thank you, thank you ... :yourock:

PS - Isn't it GREAT what can be found in OLd Boondockers!!!
What year was that? I can remember reading about it.

1996, and repeating what Doug said.

WhiteRhino
May 19th, 2010, 10:02 PM
Atta boy!

sumpter1
May 20th, 2010, 07:31 AM
Thanks for your dedication and updates.

dustyxj
May 20th, 2010, 10:58 AM
Thank you so much for all your time and effort to keep our trails open... :yourock:

Trail_Fanatic
May 20th, 2010, 05:01 PM
We MUST spread the word that:


The new Registration fee will get you:

The expansion of PA240 STATE WIDE
Removal its SUNSET DATE (remember that it IS set to expire, making ALL road shoulder riding illegal again soon)
Counts all CRC roads on NFS lands as OPEN in open counties, despite the NFS' attempt to claim that those are Federal Roads and therefore subject to the MVUM (NO PA 240).
Will allow State Highway Commission to designate State and Federal Highways for shoulder riding where needed



Trail Permit Fees haven't been raised since 1996.

Consumer Price Index (CPI) calculates that after inflation $16.25 would be near $25 at today's prices .

The $5.50 difference will get you:

REAL receipt-based accounting, not the broad categorized type crap they've given us at the Advisory Board meetings
Statutory definition of "Other Road"
Statutory clarification of Forest Road
INCREASE in Event Permit trigger number from 20 PEOPLE to 75 VEHICLES
Liability protection for maintenance workers and groups
Maintenance of 800 miles of new trails and routes (including Drummond)
Tremendously improved Safety Training Course that will now include 4x4 and extraction training
Safety Training personnel will now be required to take and PASS all 3 types of NATIONAL Programs (Bike, ATV, and 4x4) before they will be allowed to teach.


Are these Bills completely comprehensive and make ALL of the improvements we would like to see?

No

BUT . . .

Do they make a hell of a good start?

I sure think so!

Besides, if they fail to pass, the system will deteriorate VERY quickly. We are out of surplus money and are NOT taking in enough at $16.25 to maintain the system in its current condition. Just to keep our current level would take an increase to $25. PLUS we have those 800 miles of new stuff to try to pay for.


PLEASE, PLEASE,PLEASE help us get the word out that we NEED people to call the Committee and ask them to SUPPORT these Bills (6159, 6160, 6161, and 6162).

300Grand
May 21st, 2010, 12:00 PM
GREAT JOB PAT!

Rocky
May 24th, 2010, 07:37 PM
QUOTE*
Yesterday, GLFWDA, as a member of the MMRC, was asked to testify before the House Tourism & Natural Resources Committee (TNR Com.) about HB6160 and 6161.
END QUOTE*

Regarding this so called MMRC, could somebody please answer the following questions?

*Who is the President of this MMRC?
*Who are the Board members of this MMRC?
*When are club meetings held?
*Where are club meetings held?
*Where can I read the clubs minutes at?
*What legal statis [ 501c3?] does this club hold in the State of Michigan?
*How does a person sign-up and join this MMRC?

Im not trying to be a smart :bootyshake: or anything, but I have asked Dick Ranney, Joel Sheltrown, Lew Shuler and a host of various other ORV folks the exact same above questions as well, and NOBODY has answered them.

I suspect its really because this MMRC has no legal statis in Michigan. And if thats the case, than I would ''think'' that one would want to be sort of careful about testifiying in front of a State Committee.

Anybody?

Renegade II
May 24th, 2010, 07:53 PM
QUOTE*
Yesterday, GLFWDA, as a member of the MMRC, was asked to testify before the House Tourism & Natural Resources Committee (TNR Com.) about HB6160 and 6161.
END QUOTE*

Regarding this so called MMRC, could somebody please answer the following questions?

*Who is the President of this MMRC?
*Who are the Board members of this MMRC?
*When are club meetings held?
*Where are club meetings held?
*Where can I read the clubs minutes at?
*What legal statis [ 501c3?] does this club hold in the State of Michigan?
*How does a person sign-up and join this MMRC?

Im not trying to be a smart :bootyshake: or anything, but I have asked Dick Ranney, Joel Sheltrown, Lew Shuler and a host of various other ORV folks the exact same above questions as well, and NOBODY has answered them.

I suspect its really because this MMRC has no legal statis in Michigan. And if thats the case, than I would ''think'' that one would want to be sort of careful about testifiying in front of a State Committee.

Anybody?

I thought the MMRC was disbanded by the governors EO (2009-54) and the MSATAC (Michigan Snowmobile and Trails Advisory Council) took it's place :confused:

Trail_Fanatic
May 24th, 2010, 08:32 PM
QUOTE*
Yesterday, GLFWDA, as a member of the MMRC, was asked to testify before the House Tourism & Natural Resources Committee (TNR Com.) about HB6160 and 6161.
END QUOTE*

Regarding this so called MMRC, could somebody please answer the following questions?

*Who is the President of this MMRC?
*Who are the Board members of this MMRC?
*When are club meetings held?
*Where are club meetings held?
*Where can I read the clubs minutes at?
*What legal status [ 501c3?] does this club hold in the State of Michigan?
*How does a person sign-up and join this MMRC?

I'm not trying to be a smart :bootyshake: or anything, but I have asked Dick Ranney, Joel Sheltrown, Lew Shuler and a host of various other ORV folks the exact same above questions as well, and NOBODY has answered them.

I suspect its really because this MMRC has no legal status in Michigan. And if thats the case, than I would ''think'' that one would want to be sort of careful about testifying in front of a State Committee.

Anybody?

Sure.


There is no President
There is no BoD
It is not a "club" so there are no monthly meetings, there is no set "place" or minutes kept.

The MMRC is comprised of a Delegate from each of the largest organizations in each form of ORV recreation sitting "round table" style to try to effect positive change on those things we can all agree upon. We each represent the organization who sent each of us.

I was selected by the GLFWDA BoD to represent this organization's interests at the MMRC along with GLFWDA President, Bob DeVore. Together, Bob and I are doing everything we can think of to utilize the MMRC relationship to further the needs and interests of the 4x4 segment of the ORV crowd. We also happen to be understanding of the needs of the other types of ORVs too. So we are supportive of our smaller brethren's efforts to get more riding opportunities for themselves. We would also like more, but realizing that Rome wasn't built in a day (and we didn't loose our trails in a day either) we are content to make sure some of the more restrictive rules 4x4s have trouble with are addressed here.

MMRC "round table" discussions are open for any delegate to bring ideas forward. If an idea is presented and a member disapproves of the idea after discussion, the idea is dropped from MMRC consideration but is still completely open to the individual organization to pursue. If an idea is presented and all representatives agree that it would be beneficial to our various sports, then it is brought forward as an MMRC goal, objective, project (whatever you wish to call it).


Hope this helps. :thumb:

Rocky
May 24th, 2010, 10:57 PM
Pat,
thank you for your response.

There are some very serious issues with the way this MMRC works. I was invited to the very first hand picked Dick Ranney MMRC meeting and because I did not agree with everything Ranney had on the table at this meeting and expressed myself, I was never invited to come back to another one,even after I asked to on MANY occasions. Just like an ORV Board meeting, if Dick did'nt like what you had to say, he quickly shut you down or cut you off.

Second, ONE delegate from each of the largest ORV clubs in this MMRC does not always represent the interests of club membership or the interests of the majority of Michigan ORV users who dont belong to a club.. For God sakes Pat, I recall when a particular ATV club in Michigan had a female for the clubs President, she might still be? Now this is a women who cant even tell when the tire on her Honda ATV needed air before going for a trail a ride [ thru story ]. This is a women who was selected to be on the ORV committee's long term finicial planning board with no more than a few ORV Board meetings under her butt for an experience record.This is a ATV club that cannot get along or even hold a club President before he/she desides to quit after a year of service [ for YEARS now ]. If you think for one second that this is someone I want making decisions for the future of my sport in this MMRC, sorry my friend,its not.

The problem with this MMRC and some of this new amended ORV legislation is that it lacks in several area's and it only represents the interest of a few ''Dick Ranney hand picked'' folks who belong to ORV clubs.This is wrong,especially when your dealing with RAISING user fee's.

There is some real important stuff that was left out of this amended legislation.Right now, im only going to bring up one point of interest.It being the OLD/OUTDATE 19 year old law that allows a youth to operate an ORV at ANY age, but descriminates against the same age youth from operating an appropiately sized ATV.

I think you know that I do ORV safety education classes. I also beleive that I may have taught more ''hands on'' safety classes in the last 10 years on a National/State level than any other instructor in the State of Michigan.

My point you ask?

I've gotten asked ALOT of questions and had ALOT of requests from more various ORVers [ students ] in the State of Michigan than probably many of the delegates that represent this MMRC.I beleive I also have a darn good idea on what many ORVers want. After all these years of experience,requests and questions, you would think that this MMRC would want someone with my knowledge to also help assist them with this new legislation. I was told if I did'nt like what was going on behind closed doors in this MMRC, to find my own State Representative to legislate my points of interest. Is this how the MMRC treats the ORVers of Michigan who pay their user fee's and dont necessarily belong to a club?

One of the first questions that I get in EVERY ORV safety class is,why can my kid operate a 2 wheeled dirtbike on Michigans designated trails at any age, but he cant operate a proper sized 4 wheeler with four wheels planted under his butt until he is 12?

I have parents who are FORCED to have their 6-9 year old kids operate a 2 wheeled dirtbike on Michigans sandy trails against their will because of this old/outdated legislation. These parents WANT their kids to have the same priveledge to ride an ATV as a kid on a dirt bike has been able to do for ages now.

Where's your MMRC delegate for this Pat?

phittie1100
May 25th, 2010, 07:42 AM
I thought the MMRC was disbanded by the governors EO (2009-54) and the MSATAC (Michigan Snowmobile and Trails Advisory Council) took it's place :confused:

No - EO 2009-54 eliminated the ORV Advisory Board and the Snowmobile Advisory Council and replaced them with the multi-user MSATAC.

kb8ymf
May 27th, 2010, 07:04 AM
Pat,

One of the first questions that I get in EVERY ORV safety class is,why can my kid operate a 2 wheeled dirtbike on Michigans designated trails at any age, but he cant operate a proper sized 4 wheeler with four wheels planted under his butt until he is 12?


Bob,
This philosophical question gets asked over and over and the rationale is still the same as it originated in the original ORV law that was worked on years ago.

If you put a youngster on a 2 wheel vehicle. If he/she is unable to adequately control the vehicle, he/she will loose their balance and fall off before reaching any real dangerous speed. Much like a child learning to ride a 2 wheeler without training wheels.

Putting a youngster on a 4 wheeled vehicle is quite different. He/she is less apt to fall over, and in fact will not due to the inherent stability of 4 wheeled vehicles. The vehicle will continue to stay upright and potentially run into something and hurt themselves.

So that's the rationale that is brought up every single time the age/vehicle type question gets debated. I've even heard that story used by legislators time and time again. It's NOT a position that MMRC or ANY GROUP is able to fight or rationalize as there must be DNR support for these legislative changes in order for any hope of passage. It's basically a 'pick the battles you can win' philosophy.
You have to remember, P.A. 240 was a huge win for the ORV community and we're trying to improve the Off-road / Off-highway experience for users in Michigan utilizing some of that momentum. And as far as the fees going up, I just as upset as the next guy with the prices of things going up. However, go read Pat B's 'what we're getting for our fee increase' and I'm sure you can can't argue we ARE getting more benefits.

jim-kb8ymf

300Grand
May 27th, 2010, 12:32 PM
[QUOTE]There are some very serious issues with the way this MMRC works. I was invited to the very first hand picked Dick Ranney MMRC meeting and because I did not agree with everything Ranney had on the table at this meeting and expressed myself, I was never invited to come back to another one,even after I asked to on MANY occasions. Just like an ORV Board meeting, if Dick did'nt like what you had to say, he quickly shut you down or cut you off.


First and foremost, Dick Ranny, with his as you call them "hand picked" MMRC meetings, has been able to get more improvements to our ORV system pushed through the DNR in the past 4 years then I can recall in the past 20 years. He has also been able to facilitate a level of cooperation never before seen between user groups in this state.


Second, ONE delegate from each of the largest ORV clubs in this MMRC does not always represent the interests of club membership or the interests of the majority of Michigan ORV users who dont belong to a club.. For God sakes Pat, I recall when a particular ATV club in Michigan had a female for the clubs President, she might still be? Now this is a women who cant even tell when the tire on her Honda ATV needed air before going for a trail a ride [ thru story ]. This is a women who was selected to be on the ORV committee's long term finicial planning board with no more than a few ORV Board meetings under her butt for an experience record.This is a ATV club that cannot get along or even hold a club President before he/she desides to quit after a year of service [ for YEARS now ]. If you think for one second that this is someone I want making decisions for the future of my sport in this MMRC, sorry my friend,its not.



Second, not every orgination is perfect! I know this because I AM one of those previous ATV club Presidents that you are speeking of! Regardless of who this ATV club sends as a representitive the important thing is that the ATV user group represented by someone capable of thinking rationally.

Bill, it's "nice" to see that you are joining us here at GLFWDA! :banghead:

Trail_Fanatic
May 27th, 2010, 08:14 PM
Looks like others have answered some of your questions.

Please also keep in mind that this is GLFWDA, not an ATV organization. While GLFWDA supports what our smaller motorized brothers are trying to do, that is not our focus. We (Bob and I on behalf of GLFWDA) are concerned with the issues facing our organization's members.

If you were to actually break down the "benefits list" into just those items which overtly benefit the 4x4 crowd, the list grows much smaller.

The Bills only provide part of the benefit to GLFWDA. A larger portion of the benefit to GLFWDA is a behind-the-scenes, hand-on, how-to lesson in the legislative process courtesy of the MMRC. GLFWDA may not be realizing ALL of it's legislative "wish list" in this set of Bills, but we have gained TREMENDOUS insight into how to navigate the political intricacies of the legislative process with GREATLY improved chances of success.

That alone is priceless.

Rocky
May 27th, 2010, 10:01 PM
Jim,
the rational regarding youthful dirt bike operation and youthful ATV operation is redicules,at best.No disrespect intended your ways, as you are only indicating to me our legislators position.

Id love to get into this debate with whatever legislator has the nerve or experience to take me on.

TOM,
glad to see you have'nt changed a bit either, your still the same ole :lmao: guy you were over at the other place.

kb8ymf
May 28th, 2010, 11:35 PM
Jim,
the rational regarding youthful dirt bike operation and youthful ATV operation is redicules,at best.No disrespect intended your ways, as you are only indicating to me our legislators position.

Id love to get into this debate with whatever legislator has the nerve or experience to take me on.


None taken Bill. I'm just the messenger. I've sat in enough meetings and heard that rationale used over and over. In order to make the hurdle to get the Legislators to modify that rule, it make take a 'half way' position rather than all or nothing. Perhaps lowering the ATV age to 10 might be all that you can get. As Pat alluded to, GLFWDA surely isn't getting everything it would like either, BUT, we are getting educated and learning the ropes so that next time we'll be better prepared and some skids will be greased enough that we'll have 'friends' in position of power that we may be able to convience to see things our way a little more.
jim-kb8ymf

Trail_Fanatic
May 30th, 2010, 08:38 AM
I posted this on another site where there were some issues raised.
Perhaps the post will work here to (?):


Please, those of you who have issues with the Bills . . .

It's extremely hard to covert a complaint about an issue into real words on paper that will both solve the issue and be something that will successfully make it through the legislative process.

Please help your representatives out by trying to include suggestions on how to word the solution to your issue.

Wording must be simple, clear, and concise.

Vague words must be avoided or risk allowing the DNRE enough wiggle room to undo what is trying to be done.

It's easy to say 'we want control of the program'.
It's another thing to write it in Bill format.
It's entirely another to make it law.
It's yet again another to administer it.

Which users would be in control?
A new "Board"?
Who will sit on the Board?
How long will they sit?
How will it be kept "fair"?
Who decides how to define "fair"?

A good law answers more questions that it opens up.

Also keep in mind that a Bill has to be passed by the House Committee, the House, the Senate Committee, the Senate AND signed by the Governor to become a law. Likewise, it only takes one Committee Chair or the Governor to say no or a failing vote anywhere along the process and the Bill is dead. This is NOT an easy task, especially if there are government agencies lined up opposing it.

Like I said, it isn't easy.

Your help would not only be appreciated, it could be the difference between your issue being corrected and not.

Thank you

Creative Fab
June 11th, 2010, 04:50 PM
Copy and pasted from Michigan Out Of Doors

ORV overhaul

One issue that has been receiving a lot of attention recently is that of how Michigan regulates and pays for Off Road Vehicle (ORV) recreation in the state. A legislative package worked out between State Rep. Joel Sheltrown (D-West Branch) and the Michigan Motorized Recreation Council has received extensive testimony over the past 4 weeks in the Michigan House Committee on Tourism, Natural Resources and Outdoor Recreation. Collectively, the four bills that make up the package would establish an ORV registration and permit system similar to that of snowmobiles.

Along with minor changes like swapping the term "ORV" for "OHV," (Off-Highway Vehicle) the bills would change the current ORV license to an OHV permit and provide for a statewide expansion of Public Act 240 of 2008 - allowing local governments to open county roads for OHV use. Currently ORVs are allowed on the shoulders of county roads in the Northern Lower Peninsula and Upper Peninsula under P.A. 240.

Specifically, the bills would do the following:

House Bill 6159 (Lindberg, D-Marquette)

* Change references to "Off-road vehicle" and "ORV" to "Off-highway vehicle" and "OHV"
* Create OHV Registration (good for 3 years) within the Secretary of State begining April 1, 2011 with a $20 application and renewal fee.
* Exempt registration requirement for organized OHV or racing events on public property
* Exempt vehicles already registered in Michigan, another state or Canada from registration decal requirements

House Bill 6160 (Sheltrown, D-West Branch)

* Change the current ORV License to an OHV Permit, increasing the current $16.50 annual fee to a $30.50 annual fee that would go toward increased enforcement, trail maintenance, restoration and safety education
* Exempt OHVs from the permit for (1) Safety and training programs, (2) OHVs operated on private property, and (3) OHVs operating on a frozen surface of a lake, river or stream for ice fishing
* Provide for a 5-year fee adjustment based on the Consumer Price Index

House Bill 6161 (W. Schmidt, R-Traverse City)

* Establish a program to license and regulate OHV instructors
* Limit the reimbursement fee to $20 per student for OHV Safety Instruction
* Establish an OHV Safety Training Academy
* Allow for additional, optional, hands-on training to be paid by the student

House Bill 6162 (Caul, R-Mt. Pleasant)

* Expand P.A. 240 statewide, removing geographic restrictions on OHV use on local roads (pending local control)
* Increase minimum penalties for violations
* Provide civil immunity for the state concerning OHVs on state highways
* Allow the state transportation commission to authorize the use of OHVs on state highways
* Clarify that shoulders are included in the "maintained portion of the road"

Many amendments proposed by user organizations and individuals alike are currently under consideration. While it's uncertain when a vote will be taken, the clock is ticking on the session calendar which would likely make a vote likely before the end of June.

My question is regarding the above statement "Exempt vehicles already registered in Michigan, another state or Canada from registration decal requirements" does this mean if our fullsize vehicle is already registered as SOS do we still need the "OHV" decal? this make sit sound like we do not

Jarhead
June 13th, 2010, 07:58 AM
My question is regarding the above statement "Exempt vehicles already registered in Michigan, another state or Canada from registration decal requirements" does this mean if our fullsize vehicle is already registered as SOS do we still need the "OHV" decal? this make sit sound like we do not

That statement references the registration portion of the legislation. There would be no change to who would need a Trail Permit.

:thumb:

Creative Fab
June 16th, 2010, 12:49 PM
That makes more sense Bob, I was not reading it correctly.

MiniJ
July 1st, 2010, 07:40 PM
That statement references the registration portion of the legislation. There would be no change to who would need a Trail Permit.

:thumb:

Ok, so if I understand correctly...according to this statement: Create OHV Registration (good for 3 years) within the Secretary of State begining April 1, 2011 with a $20 application and renewal fee.......

Does my Jeep, as my daily driver - which I already pay an annual fee to SOS to drive - have to register AGAIN? Or does the exemption mean that it's already registered and therefore is exempt from this new $20?

Trail_Fanatic
July 1st, 2010, 08:03 PM
Ok, so if I understand correctly...according to this statement: Create OHV Registration (good for 3 years) within the Secretary of State begining April 1, 2011 with a $20 application and renewal fee.......

Does my Jeep, as my daily driver - which I already pay an annual fee to SOS to drive - have to register AGAIN? Or does the exemption mean that it's already registered and therefore is exempt from this new $20?

This only applies to non-SOS licensed vehicles.