Washington Votes

2008 Senate Bill 6901 (Addressing the environmental impact of off-road vehicle use)

[Comments on this legislation] [Text and Analysis] [Add to Watch List]
[Previous] [Next]

  • Introduced by Sen. Ken Jacobsen, (D-Seattle) on February 1, 2008, requires identification plates for off-road vehicles and prohibits their operation on public lands in a manner that disturbs the underlying soil, creates erosion problems, or damages trees and other vegetation.
    • Referred to the Senate Natural Resources, Ocean and Recreation Committee on February 1, 2008.

Line

Comments

Introduced by Sen. Ken Jacobsen, (D-Seattle) on February 1, 2008. New Comment

1) Anonymous Citizen [by Anonymous Citizen on February 5, 2008]
Have you been to the woods lateley? What damage are you talking about? Most all the off road trails would not even be a trail without 4x4's useing them. What is the problem you are trying to solve? I am very frustrated with tree huggers that do not have a clue. Go for a hike on a hikeing trail not a 4x4 trail, there is a difference! Vote these greedy morons out of office!
Reply New Comment

Line

2) come on now folks [by Anonymous Citizen on February 4, 2008]
who is doing the real damage in the forest? When you go into the forest what do you see? I'll tell you what I see.
1. Clearcuts. The damage done by logging far surpasses all other users combined. They damgage our riding areas beyond repair. What little repair they do when they are done is slow and woefully inadaquate. But there is too much money in logging so nothing will be done about that-we'll just complain about some atv tire tracks while over the hill is the next giant clearcut.
2. Vandals shoot up signs, burn the picnic tables, and blow up the outhouses
3. Car thieves joy ride their newly acquired vehicles into the forest, then shoot them up or set them on fire.
4. Illegal dumpers
5. 4 wheel drive truckers tie their chains around the barricades and pull them out. Then go in and see what kind of damage they can do. They pull the logs from the clearcutting around to block the roads. They try to shoehorn their trucks down the ORV trails until they get stuck and then dig their way out. Then to finish out the day, find a big mud hole to get stuck in.
These are the top causes of damage that I see in the forest, not ORV users. You want to talk about soil erosion and damage to vegetation by ORV's while all this is going on? Why go after a small group of users, tax and penalize them, when they are not the ones doing the damage? Enforce the existing laws first. Continue to encourage the user groups to partner with DNR and use them to patrol and protect the forest. That is what works.
Reply New Comment

Line

3) kneejerk response [by Anonymous Citizen on February 4, 2008]
I strongly oppose this measure. It is the wrong response to take funds that are supposed to provide expanded opportunites and education to meet growing ORV use and instead use it to repair damage done by some idiots. Why not enforce the laws we already have instead of making over-the-top new ones?
Reply New Comment

Line

4) Get real [by Anonymous Citizen on February 4, 2008]
There is a lot wrong with SB6901 and only one thing right, and that has to do with if you are injured on someone's property with or without permission to use the property while using an ORV, you cannot hold that property owner liable.

They will not stop until it is outlawed.

There are several bad points one is you will have to have a user permit, licence plate, and ORV tag- all at a charge of course and get this the money will not go into the NOVA fund it will be used first to repair damage, erosion, and such to soil, vegetation, tree's and streams BY UNAUTHORIZED, ILEAGAL ORV USE!!!!
WHAT? That is like saying my property tax will not go to fund my local school until we first pay for all of the bully's counseling. I have an idea if people are braking the current law hold them responsible, why do we need new and more laws? Why can't we just enforce the one's already on the books- oh it get's better if an officer has probable cause to think I damaged soil or vegetation he can seize my bike- and I will it can be forfeiture and used by WA state or sold and all funds go back to law enforcement, (that's their incentive!)

Reply New Comment

Line

5) Civil forfeiture [by Anonymous Citizen on February 4, 2008]
Seizure and civil forfeiture based on probable cause that vegetation has been disturbed by an offroad vehicle? Little extreme or what?

Offroad vehicle gas tax and tab fee funds going to state agencies that may or may not even have any ORV trail to repair illegal damage instead of spending the money on offroad vehicle recreation facilities? That would be like taking you car gas tax and tab fees to pay resititution to victims of car crashes caused by illegal driving.
Reply New Comment

Line

6) Attack on families? [by Anonymous Citizen on February 4, 2008]
This bill was authored in a mis-informed manner. It is obvious that it's intent is to abolish ORV use statewide. Washinton state ORV users already pay for and adhere state identification tags onto the ORV's as well as pay annual taxes for tabs.

When will our legislature realize that ORV use in WA is a positive family atmosphere that has been practiced for decades? ORV users enjoy and cherish our environment.

This Bill appears to be aimed at closing all public lands to ORV use. There appears to be a factor in our society that views ORV use as a cancer.

Bottom line, ORV use is a positive things for our families, more useless regulations and rediculous laws only make outlaws out of law abiding citizens...
Reply New Comment

Line

7) Why is it? [by Anonymous Citizen on February 4, 2008]
Why is it that the people who draw up these bills are people that live in the city? Not people that actually live in the country. And by country, I do not mean King, Pierce, and Snohomish counties!
This bill is so one sided.
A nother thing! Why don't they go after Mountain biker's to have to have ORV tabs also? They use the trails that were built by the ORVer's. Is it because the bicyclist have their own lobbyist in the capitol making sure that this does not happen?
Also why is it that the money from the OVR tabs, that are payed by ORV users is getting spent on walking trails and other projects that do not have anything to do with ORV's? Can anyone answer that?
Reply New Comment

Line


Copyright © 2008 USA Votes, Inc.  Patent Pending.  All rights reserved.  Terms of use

Capitol Building

Search legislation: