Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  

Nevada Proposed OHV Registration Draft Up

Recommended Posts

Please check out the MRAN link to DRAFT OHV REGISTRATION PROPOSAL all you folks in Nevada, and those who ride in Nevada.

The draft proposal for the OHV Registration program is up, (thanks to the MRAN site), and there is a good news / bad news situation as usual.

It is a DRAFT so all of our input may make a difference!

Please go check this out, and please voice your concerns, and applaud our legislators for what they got right!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:ride: The CALIFORNIANS ARE AT IT AGAIN!!!!!!!!! This is not good.If any body cares about the freedom of OHV use in NEVADA, PLEASE write, call, e-mail your representatives, do any thing you can to get this stopped. This is extremely important. NEVADA needs our help with this one. :thumbsup: We can stop this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, here are the individuals we should be sending our complaints and kudos to:

Public Lands Committee

DEAN A. RHOADS

Republican

Rural Nevada Senatorial

(Elko, Eureka, Humboldt, Lander,

Lincoln, Pershing and White Pine

Counties, and portions of Nye County)

Rancher

E-mail: drhoads@sen.state.nv.us

District Address

Senator Dean A. Rhoads

P.O. Box 8

Tuscarora, 89834

Phone: (775) 756-6582

Fax: (775) 756-5544

MIKE MCGINNESS

Republican

Central Nevada Senatorial District

(Churchill, Esmeralda, and Mineral

Counties, and portions of Clark,

Douglas, Lyon, and Nye Counties)

Manager, Radio Station KVLV AM-FM

E-mail: mmcginness@sen.state.nv.us

Capitol Address

District Address

Senator Mike M. McGinness

770 Wildes Road

Fallon, 89406

Phone: (775) 423-5889

Fax: (775) 423-8889

JOHN W. MARVEL

Republican

Assembly District No. 32

(Portions of Humboldt, Lander, and

Washoe Counties)

Ranching

E-mail: jmarvel@asm.state.nv.us

P.O. Box 1270

Battle Mountain, NV 89820-1270

MARK E. AMODEI

Republican

Capital Senatorial District

(Portions of Douglas, Lyon, and

Storey Counties, and portions of Carson City)

Attorney at Law

E-mail: mamodei@sen.state.nv.us

District Address

Senator Mark E. Amodei

805 West Sunset Way

Carson City, 89703

Phone: (775) 882-0362

Fax: (775) 882-7918

TERRY JOHN CARE

Democrat

Clark County Senatorial

District No. 7

Attorney at Law

E-mail: tcare@sen.state.nv.us

District Address

Senator Terry John Care

4371 Woodcrest Road

Las Vegas, 89121

Phone: (702) 388-0098

Fax: (702) 436-9298

JERRY D. CLABORN

Democrat

Clark County Assembly

District No. 19

Retired Operating Engineer

E-mail: jclaborn@asm.state.nv.us

District Address

Assemblymember Jerry D. Claborn

6617 Network Drive

Las Vegas, 89156

Phone: (702) 437-9948

Fax: (702) 452-4573

GENIE OHRENSCHALL

Democrat

Clark County Assembly

District No. 12

Businesswoman, Corporate Director, Attorney

E-mail: gohrenschall@asm.state.nv.us

1124 South 15th Street

Las Vegas, NV 89104-1740

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, to make it easier for you................

Here's a slightly edited copy of my email / letter sent to all of the above individuals. Feel free to cut and paste it for a start, and then personalize it to fit your concerns.

I fully support an OHV registration program in Nevada. I believe that this will help us get in step with statutes in the majority of the Western States and provide reciprocity between user groups State-to-State and provide an education resource and oversight process for this huge economic engine in the State of Nevada.

However, I believe that NDOW’s proposal is fairly cumbersome and more inclusive than any previous OHV registration proposal presented to date. I wish to address my concerns, and express my support of other proposals.

Overall I believe this is a very good effort, addressing public safety, access issues, conservation and preservation of our valuable natural resources.

My concerns regarding sections of the proposed OHV registration program;

• The program should be administered Statewide and not on a county-by-county piecemeal basis. OHV users enjoy usage across county lines and are an economic boon to all counties in the State of Nevada. Funds should be distributed by the State OHV Advisory Council and not distributed to individual counties to distribute.

• The State of Nevada has not required registration in the past, consequently, many OHV owners do not have proof of ownership nor proof of taxes paid. Many vehicles have been purchased from private individuals, where no taxes or reporting regulations are exercised. A “grandfathering” or “amnesty” process for purchases prior to January 1, 2006 should be considered. Since that time, dealers have been working to inform the public of the requirement to provide proof of payment of sales tax, Dept of Taxation sticker requirements, etc. No provision is provided for registering OHVs whose owners have no satisfactory proof of ownership. This is a major problem because Nevada has never required registration before.

• I have reservations on the prohibition of operation by persons under 12 years of age. OHV activities are family activities. I would not suggest letting OHV enthusiasts under the age of 16 have access on paved, public highways without adult supervision. However, to restrict OHV activities to persons over the age of 12 would restrict and end many family outings. Additionally an exception allowing racers under the age of 12 being allowed on closed race courses. How are these younger riders going to learn the “basics” if they can not be taught by their parents or guardians supervision before being allowed into a competition environment? No other State that I am aware of prohibits use at this age. This proposal will also cause an economic loss to dealers in this State who sell OHVs which are appropriate for this age.

• The division of the program funds among the counties to have each implementing their own OHV program. This creates an additional level of administrative costs and development of a piecemeal program. An OHV program must be administered at the state level. No State that I am aware of does an OHV program at the county level.

• A very significant part of the power of this Council is concentrated in the hands of the Director of NDOW. Only the Director can submit nominations to the Council for their approval. Only NDOW can chair the Council. NDOW's representative, besides being the chair, is appointed by the Director, without approval from the Council, and does not have a set term to serve, as do all the other members. This type of situation in California resulted in a disaster for their OHV program and lawsuits by OHV owners.

• NDOW's proposal charges a much higher registration fee than any other western state, then takes 50% off the top for their administrative costs. Not only are the fees out of line, but the percentage mandated for administration far exceeds the limits that other states allow.

• Perhaps the most serious problem in NDOW's proposal is that it assumes that gas tax money can be obtained to fund this OHV program. Their proposal is based upon the method used for boats. When SB400 was drafted for the last legislative session, the bill drafter ruled that OHVs are motor vehicles, even though they are unlicensed. Therefore, according to the constitution, the gas tax money can go only to the Department of Transportation for use on public highways. Reasonable registration fees alone cannot fund a workable OHV program. All the states surrounding Nevada use gas tax money for funding. This funding problem is the one that needs to be solved before any OHV program is established. This money is in addition to the 50% of the fee that they want from the registration fee. This proposal gives NDOW virtually unlimited funds and absolutely no incentive to use these funds in a prudent manner. The more they spend, the more they can ask for in the following year. A similar situation in California caused numerous abuses, lack of appropriate for OHV projects and numerous law suits.

• While I fully support sound restrictions, the wording in the current document is backwards, and makes no sense. “(1) If manufactured on or after January 1, 1998 not to exceed 96dbA and (2) "If manufactured prior to January 1, 1998 not to exceed 94dbA". This proposal is allowing a higher level for newer OHVs than for older ones. Newer OHVs are quieter, so this is incorrect.

My support regarding sections of the proposed OHV registration program;

• The goal of the off-highway vehicle recreation program strives to provide for the titling and registration of off-highway vehicles, develop off-highway vehicle recreation and other management programs, including vehicle anti-theft and recovery, encourage the establishment of trails and riding areas, to foster the responsible use of off-highway vehicles as a beneficial recreational activity and to promote its growth as an economic component of tourism and a positive contributor to the state economy.

• The program promotes uniformity of laws, the creation of a safety education program, and to develop trails and other facilities for the use of OHVs.

• Protective headgear requirements, prohibiting operation of OHVs unless the person is wearing a Department of Transportation safety rated protective headgear designed for motorized vehicle use.

• Prohibiting the operation of OHVs while under the influence of alcohol or controlled or prohibited substances.

• The proposal allows a city or county to designate a portion of a highway or road for operation of OHVs, allowing them to reach an adjacent private or public area that is open for OHV recreation, enabling the linking of multiple sites.

• Requires high visibility flags for dune areas to minimize the potential for collisions in these low visibility areas.

From an owner’s perspective this NDOW proposal will not establish a satisfactory OHV program. I recommend that until funding for an OHV program can be established, that the existing COO program be continued. Once funding is established, I recommend that legislation for an OHV registration and program be based upon the original SB400 draft. Finally, I strongly recommend that any future OHV program be administered by State Parks

Thank you so much for your time and consideration on these important matters. If I can be of any help with this program, or in any of your decisions regarding this program, please don’t hesitate to contact me.

This program, what ever form it gets adopted in, is scheduled to take effect July 01, 2007! Please give them your positive as well as negative input. you can bet the EXCLUSIONISTS are!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

YOU'RE NUTS!!! Why in the hell would you even consider endorsing a registration and titling program. We have it good here in Nevada, why spoil a good thing. There doesn't need to be monies present for OHV parks or a green sticker program to feed the government. The whole state is an OHV park and lets leave it that way. What a CROCK!

:thumbsup::ride::applause::applause::applause:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You didn't READ the proposal then.......................

The above proposal IN ITS ENTIRETY will be adopted July 1, 2007!

We can try to change what we don't like, but we WILL be required to register and pay fees (like California's Red / Green Sticker thing. If this DRAFT proposal passes we will be screwed in so many ways................

Again, is not IF this will be adopted (it IS being adopted), or WHEN it will be adopted (July 01, 2007), but what it will say when it is finalized into LAW!

We can always just rant and rave, or we can try to at least sound reasonable and try to persuade our legislators into taking something back from the environmentalists who have obviously been convincing our legislators that they are the "voice of reason"............

Am I happy, NO!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

F*****n Californians! This represents from it's inception, the wishes of recent people who've moved here from The People's Republic. The tax collection and safety and other aspects are just a way for the whale-huggers to make things legal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just e-mailed my rep. and he in turn wrote back to me. He states that NV is getting pressure from the Feds since most of the state is owned by them anyway. He feels something must be done but he didn't say exactly. I wrote him back to try and nail him down on his own opinion and not some political rebuttal. The whole bill needs re-vamped because it sucks the way it's currently written.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Boy, howdy; it does.....................

The biggest problem is that the Nevada Department Of Wildlife (very hostile to us) will be put in charge of both funding and enforcement. They will also take 50% of the monies generated at the beginning of each year for their "administration costs" and place it into the General Fund. Once there it can be used by ANY other State agency (at least if I read the "legalize" of the draft proposal right).

The Nevada Department of State Parks would give us a much fairer shake...........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or an independent body of ELECTED Commissioners to run an OHV program. I copied and pasted your form letter (added some comments of my own) and sent it to my rep.(McGinness) Let the games begin. :thumbsup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just received a phone call from Assemblyman Jerry Claborn. He seemed to be very informed about this issue, and seemed to share many of or concerns such as NDOW running the program, the funding model, Wilderness Areas, age limits, etc.

I would urge everyone to email Assb. Claborn (jclaborn@asm.state.nv.us ) to let him know what you think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't forget to vote, Titus is a tree hugging liberal and has stated that she has aggressive plans for the environment. Vote Gibbons.........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Don't forget to vote, Titus is a tree hugging liberal and has stated that she has aggressive plans for the environment. Vote Gibbons.........

DUH! She's a Democrat! Vote Republican for any remote chance of having a common sense approach to the environment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Reply with:

Sign in to follow this  

×