Washington SB-5366 - Makes any unmanaged ORV use on public lands CRIMINAL

[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.

[tod701]

I have been working this on a daily basis.

This is just one of a stack of problem.

Some bad for us, some bad for quad owners, some bad for the State.

This bill is before the Senate Rules Committee right now.

Tell them that is has way too many flaws to fix at this point and to please let it die.

Senate Rules Committee members:

brad.owen@leg.wa.gov

margarita.prentice@leg.wa.gov

mike.hewitt@leg.wa.gov

lisa.brown@leg.wa.gov

mike.carrell@leg.wa.gov

steve.conway@leg.wa.gov

tracey.eide@leg.wa.gov

karen.fraser@leg.wa.gov

nick.harper@leg.wa.gov

marymargaret.haugen@leg.wa.gov

karen.keiser@leg.wa.gov

curtis.king@leg.wa.gov

adam.kline@leg.wa.gov

jeanne.kohl-welles@leg.wa.gov

rosemary.mcauliffe@leg.wa.gov

linda.parlette@leg.wa.gov

cheryl.pflug@leg.wa.gov

debbie.regala@leg.wa.gov

mark.schoesler@leg.wa.gov

val.stevens@leg.wa.gov

joseph.zarelli@leg.wa.gov

Edited February 7, 2012 by tod701

[tod701]

When contacting legislators asking them to do something about this, more important that reasons you do like a bill are reasons why they should not like a bill.

Some of the ones you contact do not like ORV use and if you tell them that the bill is anti-ORV that will make them more likely to support it.

Here are some reasons that they might not like this version of SB5366.

++++

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’s extra effort to facilitate and manage this new road use.

Unlike SB5800 (offroad to street motorcycle conversion) that was passed last year, this bill would not require the vehicles to continue to have valid ORV registration. This would reduce the Nonhighway and Offroad Vehicle Activities (NOVA) funding while at the same time not reducing the need for those funds.

Exempting this category of four wheeled street plated ORV from the Discover Pass requirements would be counterproductive considering that state of the funding for that program and would be an unfair exemption considering that typically all other vehicles licensed for road use must comply.

An additional concern that I have is related to the owner of the vehicle signing their own statement of compliance to the equipment requirements. It is in our view it is unlikely that the average ORV owner would have the specialized background to knowingly confirm compliance with the seven applicable sections of RCW46.37. Since the penalty for incorrectly signing the statement of compliance is a gross misdemeanor and if prosecuted to the letter of the law, could land a large number of well intended but not well educated people in jail. It would be much wiser for the state and for the ORV owners if an inspection requirement similar to that use in SB5800 be implemented.

[moto vita]

An additional concern that I have is related to the owner of the vehicle signing their own statement of compliance to the equipment requirements. It is in our view it is unlikely that the average ORV owner would have the specialized background to knowingly confirm compliance with the seven applicable sections of RCW46.37. Since the penalty for incorrectly signing the statement of compliance is a gross misdemeanor and if prosecuted to the letter of the law, could land a large number of well intended but not well educated people in jail. It would be much wiser for the state and for the ORV owners if an inspection requirement similar to that use in SB5800 be implemented.

How about this?

us kwad riders ar to stoopid ta inspekt ar own vehikles.

Would it be better to use "special needs riders"?

[Cycle_Path]

How much longer is it before theres a civillian revolt in this country? Criminlizing people for being in the kings forest? Seriously?

[KEITH OLSON]

Don"t worry be happy! (it"s coming.) ?

[Wonderspoon]

In a time of many legislative bills concering to the future of our sport, this one stands out IMO. Get those emails going fellas/gals!

Edited February 7, 2012 by Wonderspoon

[Chuck.]

Second email sent.

But I went directly to my Senator' web site rather than the link in the previous posts because there is a vetting process to determine if you are in the Senator's district. I think that provides a little more impact.

[tod701]

Second email sent.

But I went directly to my Senator' web site rather than the link in the previous posts because there is a vetting process to determine if you are in the Senator's district. I think that provides a little more impact.

yes for "in district" contacts and totally the oposite if you are out of district.

[Draco_M]

Isn't it already illegal to ride an ORV on state land that is not designated as open to ORV use? Maybe I missed something.

[tod701]

Isn't it already illegal to ride an ORV on state land that is not designated as open to ORV use? Maybe I missed something.

In many cases, but you don't get a mandatory $500 fine and a criminal record.

[Ride]

that's why I ride mid week in areas no one checks. This is all a ton of BS. Thanks for your efforts Tod.

[trailwhale]

Sent several emails. This SB is bad news! Everybody needs to tell their State Senator and the Commitee at large this BILL smells worse than week old garbage.

[Wonderspoon]

Emails sent

[cascade_crawler]

bump. this is no good!

[tod701]

Senate Bill SB5366 (limited ATV use on certain roads) is now before the full Senate and they could vote on it at any time.

In its original form it would have allowed limited use of ATV on certain roads with common sense use restrictions, safety equipment and liability insurance requirements. Unfortunately it has been amended to please some anti-ORV organizations and now has features that are bad for our sport.

It would criminalize as a misdemeanor with a mandatory $500 fine, using any nonhighway vehicle on any public land not specifically designated as open to nonhighway vehicles. While we do not support riding where it is illegal, this could expand that to road or trails on DNR managed public land that is outside official designated ORV areas. Getting a criminal record for riding on the wrong logging road is just way to extreme.

It would also exempt quads with this new road use from any ORV permit requirements and by doing that reduce the funds for ORV trails while still being allowed to use the trails.

Instead of requiring an equipment inspection, the vehicle owner would sign their own compliance statement to present to the department of Licensing. While this would be convenient, by signing the form the owner would be declaring their their vehicle complies with variety of equipment laws within RCW46.37. If a mistake is made and they are wrong about the compliance, the penalty is a gross misdemeanor and that can include significant jail time. This could easily send well meaning people to jail just because they were not thoroughly knowledgeable in interpreting State law. That is far too extreme and it would make much more sense to have the inspection done by a profession as is being done with the motorcycle conversions now allowed by the passing of SB5800 last year.

What started out as a good bill is now a bad one.

Please contact your State Senator and time them to vote no on SB5366 if it is not fixed before the Senate votes on it. Promises of fixes later are not good enough.

If you don’t know who your State Senator is or how to contact them, go to www.leg.wa.gov

[Slackkinhard]

Why would they allow a quad owner to certify their own vehicle, but a motorcycle owner cannot?

I can't agree about this ever being a good thing.

[tod701]

Why would they allow a quad owner to certify their own vehicle, but a motorcycle owner cannot?

'cause if this becomes law, they could go to jail when they f-up the form.

Edited February 11, 2012 by tod701

[Slackkinhard]

'cause if this becomes law, the could go to jail when they f-up the form.

Quad owners are some of the smartest folk I know ?

[Chuck.]

I just received this from Senator Eide:

I voted to pass this bill out of the Senate Transportation Committee. I believe this version of the bill strikes the right balance between rural economic development and public safety. The bill is currently in the Rules committee awaiting further action.

Sincerely,

Tracey J. Eide

Senator Tracey J. Eide

Majority Floor Leader

30th Legislative District

In another newsletter from Senator Eide I received this week:

The Senate began hearing bills on the floor this week and we have been busy! Our work days run into the night as the cutoff date for Senate bills quickly approaches. We are working hard to pass both policy and fiscal bills that will address the budget crisis and help create jobs. Balancing the budget remains my top priority!

• February 3- last day to move a Senate bill out of a Senate POLICY committee
  
• February 7-last day to move a Senate bill out of a Senate FISCAL committee
  
• February 14- last day for the Senate to hear Senate bills
  
• February 24- last day to move a House bill out of a Senate POLICY committee
  
• February 27- last day to move a House bill out of a Senate FISCAL committee
  
• March 2- last day for the Senate to hear House bills (with some exceptions, including bills necessary to implement budgets or that affect revenue)
  
• March 8-Last day of regular session
  

So is the Rules Committee classed as a "Policy" committee or a "Fiscal" committee?