1. Livestream NOW at 11AM PST / 2PM EST!
    Baldy Interviews + Noraly "Itchy Boots" from Youtube YouTube Live Chat here
    Dismiss Notice

Rocky Mountain Access Issues

Discussion in 'The Rockies – It's all downhill from here...' started by neduro, Dec 12, 2006.

  1. Yellow Pig

    Yellow Pig Allergic to asphalt! Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2004
    Oddometer:
    9,315
    Location:
    SoCal -T.O.
    Nice!
  2. neduro

    neduro Long timer Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2003
    Oddometer:
    12,299
    Location:
    Salida, CO
    One of the most logical pieces of legislation I've seen!
  3. Rodzilla

    Rodzilla Little short for a Stormtrooper

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2005
    Oddometer:
    2,398
    Location:
    Wheat Ridge Colorado
    COHVCO's public comment letter regarding the Colorado Roadless Rule proposal is attached.

    COHVCO would strongly encourage everyone to comment as there are groups trying to remove all access to roadless areas, despite the fact dispersed motorized is a valid use of a roadless area. Comments are due by July 14, 2011.


    E-mail address for sending in your comments is COComments@fsroadless.org




    Colorado Roadless Rule/EIS
    P.O. Box 1919
    Sacramento, CA 95812



    Dear Sirs:


    I am contacting you to voice my support for the 57,600 acre reduction in designated Roadless areas provided by Alternative 2 of the proposed Colorado Roadless Rule. I am vigorously opposed to Alternative 4 of the proposal. I also support the continued management of dispersed motorized recreation in Roadless Areas under the Travel Management Planning process. Motorized recreationalists utilize these areas for the dispersed recreational experience they are designed to provide, a fact often lost in the application of the roadless rule.



    While I support Alternative 2, I do not support the theory of upper tier area included in this proposal, as often the Roadless Rule is a source of confusion and frustration for the users of the forests. An additional level of roadless area designation will not help this situation. The upper tier area theory will make the frustration and confusion experienced by forest users worse. In addition to increasing frustration, the upper tier theory simply makes no sense in terms of providing flexibility to managers to address local fire prevention concerns. Alternative 4 simply makes no sense from this perspective as it provides an upper tier area.



    I believe the increased flexibility provided by the Colorado Roadless Rule proposal is superior to the existing Roadless Rule. Given the exceptionally high fuel loads present as a result of the pine beetle epidemic, it is critical that forest managers have the full range of possible options to address the most cost effective way to reduce the risk of forest fires to mountain communities and homes. The EIS goes to great lengths to address the need for flexibility in dealing with fuels issues on the forests. The theory of upper tier area directly conflicts with this analysis as significant numbers of local communities will be directly limited in their ability to address fire prevention as a result of upper tier designations within a short distance of the community.



    I am also opposed to the negative economic impact that will result from the upper tier theory in the new Roadless Rule which will result in a negative impact to the Colorado economy in excess of $100 million dollars. Given the poor state of the Colorado economy for the foreseeable future and the mandate of the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act requirement of balancing economic interests with all other interests, I don't think this required balance has been achieved after the inclusion of the upper tier areas.



    I also have concerns regarding the proposed 107,300 acre increase in roadless areas on the Pike/San Isabel Forest and the 22,300 acres increase on the San Juan Forest. These expansions of roadless areas are directly in conflict with the stated need for flexibility in fire management that is discussed at length in the EIS. Clearly an areas designation as roadless will reduce the tools available to managers to deal with fire mitigation issues.



    Sincerely

    (please remember to include your address )
  4. RockyMtnScotsman

    RockyMtnScotsman Been here awhile

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2008
    Oddometer:
    578
    Location:
    Colorado Springs
    DeGette proposing to close 700,000 acres to OHV use

    http://www.americanmotorcyclist.com/Rights/IssuesLegislation.aspx


    On July 6, 2011, Rep. Diana DeGette (D-CO) introduced H.R. 2420, the Colorado Wilderness Act of 2011. The American Motorcyclist Association (AMA) is concerned about this bill because it will designate nearly 700,000 acres as Wilderness in Colorado. This Wilderness designation will make the land off limits to off-highway vehicle (OHV) enthusiasts. 3.5 million acres are already designated as Wilderness in Colorado and by a stroke of a pen this legislation proposes to increase Wilderness by another 700,000 acres without local input of those who recreates responsibly on that land.

    The AMA needs your help to stop H.R. 2420 in its tracks. The fastest way to reach your Representative is to call them. You can find contact information for your elected officials at AmericanMotorcyclist.com > Rights > Issues & Legislation, then enter your zip code in the "Find your Officials" box. Additionally, a prewritten e-mail is available for you to send to your federal elected official immediately by following the "Take Action" option and entering your information.

    The AMA encourages its members to utilize the media as a communication tool. The media can be helpful in getting our message out to the public or drawing attention to our concerns regarding the Colorado Wilderness Act. To find and contact local or national media outlets, click here. For tips on drafting a letter to your local newspaper editor, click here.

    For more information about how to protect your right to ride, please visit the "Get Involved" section of the AMA web site. For direct access, click here.

    Please write or call your Representative today and ask them to oppose H.R. 2420.
  5. MotoMinded

    MotoMinded Rally On Super Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2006
    Oddometer:
    5,430
    Location:
    COS
    Good stuff back up on topic. Please show support for something that can be GREAT!!!!
    1. hit the take action link.
    2. scroll down to the bottom of the page that opens up & enter your zip.
    3. rest is easy.





    Congress to hold hearing on bill that supports greater access to public lands.

    Take Action!

    Contact your Senators and Representative today


    On July 26, 2011, the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands, chaired by Representative Rob Bishop (R-UT), will hold a hearing on H.R. 1581, the "Wilderness and Roadless Area Release Act of 2011." This bill would remove restrictions to motorized access on more than 40 million acres of public land nationwide.

    To view a live webcast of the hearing scheduled for July 26 at 10 a.m. EDT, click here.

    Representative and Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) along with Representative Rob Bishop (R-UT), and Representative Steve Pearce (R-NM), Chairman of the Congressional Western Caucus introduced H.R. 1581.

    On May 26, 2011, Senators John Barrasso (R-WY), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Dean Heller (R-NV) introduced the Senate companion bill (S. 1087).

    The American Motorcyclist Association (AMA) and All-Terrain Vehicle Association (ATVA) support these bills and applaud Reps. McCarthy, Bishop, Pearce, and Sens. Barrasso, Murkowski, Hatch and Heller for helping every American achieve greater access to our public lands. On April 5, 2011, the AMA and ATVA sent McCarthy a letter of support for this bill. To view the letter, click here.

    These bills would remove the riding ban on 6.7 million acres managed by the federal Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and riding restrictions that may be in place for 36.1 million acres of U.S. Forest Service (USFS) land.

    "As strong supporters of multiple-use principles for our public lands, we should release public lands from restrictive management practices that are unnecessary," Rep. McCarthy told his colleagues. "This bill also would preserve and strengthen the robust local land management planning process by returning emphasis to local stakeholders and local communities who know best how to manage their public lands rather than bureaucrats here in Washington."

    Specifically, these bills would "release" all Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) controlled by the BLM and Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) managed by the USFS that have been determined by land managers to be unsuitable for congressional Wilderness land-use designations. Motorized recreation is banned on Wilderness land.

    The AMA and ATVA support appropriate Wilderness designations that meet the criteria established by the Wilderness Act of 1964. A Wilderness designation is one of the strictest forms of public land management. Once Congress designates an area as Wilderness, nearly all forms of non-pedestrian recreation are prohibited.

    These bills are long overdue and the AMA and ATVA thank Reps. McCarthy, Bishop, Pearce, and Sens. Barrasso, Murkowski, Hatch and Heller for introducing them. For years, anti-access groups have used WSAs and other tactics to inappropriately keep responsible riders off public land that is well suited for motorized recreation.

    The AMA and ATVA need you to contact your Senators and Representative now to urge them to become a cosponsor to H.R. 1581/S. 1087, the "Wilderness and Roadless Area Release Act of 2011." Just follow the "Take Action" option at the top of the page to send a pre-written e-mail directly to your Senators and Representative.
  6. neduro

    neduro Long timer Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2003
    Oddometer:
    12,299
    Location:
    Salida, CO
    To me, this is the most exciting bill to come along in a decade. It changes the direction of things, even if it doesn't pass, it is a step in the right direction.

    Letter SENT!
  7. Yellow Pig

    Yellow Pig Allergic to asphalt! Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2004
    Oddometer:
    9,315
    Location:
    SoCal -T.O.
    +1

    Done!
  8. NMTrailboss

    NMTrailboss Team Dead End

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2008
    Oddometer:
    8,979
    Location:
    Albuquerque, NM
    Done!
  9. ironbrewer

    ironbrewer Hopefully Riding

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2005
    Oddometer:
    4,195
    Location:
    Was in Colorado now in The Northwet, Washington
    Done!!
  10. Yellow Pig

    Yellow Pig Allergic to asphalt! Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2004
    Oddometer:
    9,315
    Location:
    SoCal -T.O.
    Just in from COHVCO:

    Kind of long, but I have highlighted the salient bits of info.

    The Bureau of Land Managements (BLM's) Kremmling Field Office's (KFO's) proposed Resource Management Plan (RMP) needs your comments. The current proposed RMP calls for a significant decrease in the number of miles for off-highway vehicle use. The KFO, located in Kremmling, CO., has released its proposed RMP and is requesting public comment.


    The KFO field office manages BLM lands located north of I-70 between the eastern boundaries of the Medicine Bow/Rout National Forest and western boundaries of the Arapahoe Roosevelt National Forest. The office has extended the comment deadline until January 17, 2012 and the American Motorcyclists Association (AMA) urges you to use the talking points provided below to send a letter to the KFO.


    Comments should be addressed and mailed to:
    Kremmling Field Office
    Attn: Dennis Gale, RMP Project Manager
    PO Box 68
    Kremmling, CO 80459​


    The RMP, as proposed, would have the following effects:​
    • Decrease cross-country travel currently allowed on 307,300 acres to 200 acres
    • Decrease designated route mileage for full-size vehicles from 1,739 miles to 872 miles
    • Decrease designated route mileage for ATVs from 73 miles to 14 miles
    • Decrease designated single-track route mileage for motorcycles from 53 miles to 21 miles
    • Decrease mileage for mechanized/ non-motorized from 99 miles to 72 miles
    • Decrease mileage for foot/horse traffic from 33 to 6 miles.
    Alternative D has been identified as the best alternative for off-highway vehicle (OHV) recreation, but even this Alternative fails to address current usage trends and provide a viable plan for realistic management of the lands over the expected life of the RMP. In fact the RMP could be outdated by the time the final decision document is released.

    Both the Colorado Off Highway Vehicle Coalition (COHVCO) and the Trails Preservation Alliance (TPA) are opposed to Alternative C as this option lacks a solid scientific basis and violates both state and federal planning guidelines.
    Other talking points provided by the AMA, COHVCO and TPA to include in your letter are:
    • The RMP provides a large amount of information regarding uses but is very disorganized and hard to review. This lack of basic organization limits the opportunity for the public to comment effectively.
    • Combining travel management and resource management plans is simply not a viable planning process, and these issues should be addressed separately. There is simply too much information to be analyzed under a combined plan.
    • There is no meaningful analysis of travel management issues in the RMP. The travel management portion of the RMP is covered in 51 pages addressing four alternatives for 378,884 acres.
    <LI style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt" class=yiv1930473776MsoNormal>The economic impact of the proposed travel management closures in the RMP has been incorrectly calculated. The RMP asserts that closure of 50% of the motorized routes will have no negative economic impacts. This calculation is simply incorrect, as every mile of trail has value as a recreational resource.<LI style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt" class=yiv1930473776MsoNormal>A lack of access has already been identified as a hunting management issue on the KFO, and closing 50% of routes will clearly impact many uses outside motorized recreation.<LI style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt" class=yiv1930473776MsoNormal>The RMP proposed simply does not reflect current usage levels not accurately address future usage projections. The projections were developed in numerous state planning documents and must be reviewed and incorporated into federal public lands management plans. This failure to accurately address demands on the KFO going forward will result in a plan that rapidly loses value for on the ground management decisions.<LI style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt" class=yiv1930473776MsoNormal>The RMP moves to a fully designated trail system for all users but any expected benefits of the change to a designated trail system are not addressed. The RMP does not analyze why the habitat protection of a designated trail system is not sufficient to achieve RMP objectives and why the RMP finds further closures are necessary. This despite that the fact that many habitat management plans identify designated OHV trail systems as the single factor in protecting habitat.<LI style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt" class=yiv1930473776MsoNormal>While the initial closures proposed in the RMP are painful for the OHV community, many of the standards and guidelines proposed lay the groundwork for significantly more closures in the future, if area specific travel management plans are developed to address site specific issues. <LI style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt" class=yiv1930473776MsoNormal>The issue specific travel management standards (e.g., big game habitat, lynx and sage grouse habitat) are often not supported by scientific research and often directly conflict with regional management guidelines for the species. The RMP standards almost always seek to exclude motorized access first, even if it is not identified as a concern in regional planning documents.<LI style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt" class=yiv1930473776MsoNormal>The RMP proposes "optimize big game habitat". This standard is of significant concern as most of the planning office is mule deer habitat and optimizing this habitat would require removal of any use that could impact the mule deer. <LI style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt" id=yui_3_2_0_1_1326132130678441 class=yiv1930473776MsoNormal>This lack of analysis for travel management related issues is a violation of NEPA's requirements for a detailed statement of high quality information of why decisions in the Plan have been made. <LI style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt" class=yiv1930473776MsoNormal>The RMP proposes closure of all roads and trails on landlocked parcels to all motorized travel. No management issue is identified as the basis for this closure and this will only further restricted ability of users to enjoy the trails by creating dead ends and fragments throughout the system.Since the comment period ends soon, time is of the essence. The AMA, COHVCO and TPA need your help. Riders, their friend and family are encouraged to submit comments before January 17. Please cut and paste the aforementioned talking points addressed to KFO. Do not forget to sign and date your letter before mailing it.
    To be most influential, and to make sure everyone’s voice is heard, please take the time to personalize your letter. Any additional information you can provide regarding specific trails, recreational experiences, camping and other uses of this area you and your family enjoy will only strengthen the effectiveness of your letter.
  11. Yellow Pig

    Yellow Pig Allergic to asphalt! Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2004
    Oddometer:
    9,315
    Location:
    SoCal -T.O.
  12. COXR650L

    COXR650L Long timer

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2009
    Oddometer:
    2,194
    Location:
    Denver
  13. Yellow Pig

    Yellow Pig Allergic to asphalt! Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2004
    Oddometer:
    9,315
    Location:
    SoCal -T.O.
    Nice!

    Sent mine out too.
  14. Yellow Pig

    Yellow Pig Allergic to asphalt! Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2004
    Oddometer:
    9,315
    Location:
    SoCal -T.O.
    Deadline Extended. One more day to send your comments.

    The office has extended the comment deadline until January 17, 2012 and your comments are needed!


    Comments should be mailed to:
    Kremmling Field Office-Dennis Gale, RMP Project Manager
    PO Box 68
    Kremmling, CO 80459

    Corrected e-mail address below!!

    Your comments may also be emailed to: co_kremmlingrmp@blm.gov

    The RMP proposes to:
    1. Decrease cross-country travel currently allowed on 307,300 acres to 200 acres;
    2. Decrease designated route mileage for full-size vehicles from 1,739 miles to 872 miles;
    3. Decrease designated route mileage for ATVs from 73 miles to 14 miles;
    4. Decrease designated single-track route mileage for motorcycles from 53 miles to 21 miles;
    5. Decreasing mileage for mechanized/ non motorized from 99 miles to 72 miles; and
    6. Decreasing mileage for foot/horse traffic from 33 to 6 miles.
    Alternative D is the best alternative for OHV recreation but this Alternative fails to address usage trends on the Office and fails to provide a viable plan for realistic management of the lands over the expected life of the RMP. The RMP could be outdated at the time the final decision document is released. COHVCO and TPA are opposed to Alternative C as the Alternative lacks scientific basis and violates both state and federal planning guidelines.

    COHVCO and TPA's concerns are:

    1. The RMP provides a large amount of information regarding uses which are very disorganized and hard to review. The lack of basic organization will limit the amount and effectiveness of public comment provided. Combining travel management and resource management plans is simply not a viable management process, and these issues should be addressed separately. There is simply too much information to be analyzed under a combined plan.


    2. There is no meaningful analysis of travel management issues in the RMP. The travel management portion of the RMP is covered in 51 pages addressing four alternatives for 378,884 acres.


    3. The economic impact of the proposed travel management closures in the RMP has been incorrectly calculated. The RMP asserts that closure of 50% of the motorized routes will have no negative economic impacts. This calculation is simply incorrect, as every mile of trail has value as a recreational resource. A lack of access has already been identified as a hunting management issue on the KFO, and closing 50% of routes will clearly impact many uses outside motorized recreation.


    4. The Travel Management Plan proposed simply does not reflect current usage levels, future usage projections developed in the numerous state planning documents which must be reviewed and incorporated in federal public lands management. The failure to accurately address demands on the KFO going forward will result in a plan that rapidly looses utility for on the ground management.


    5. The RMP moves to a fully designated trail system for all users but the benefits of the designated trail system change simply are not addressed. The RMP does not analyze why the habitat protection of a designated trail system is not sufficient to achieve RMP objectives and why the RMP finds further closures are necessary, when most habitat management plans identify a designated OHV trail system as the single biggest step towards protecting habitat.


    6. While the initial closures proposed in the RMP are painful for the OHV community, many of the standards and guidelines proposed lay the groundwork for significantly more closures in the future, if area specific travel management plans are developed to address site specific issues. The issue specific travel management standards (i.e.: big game habitat, lynx and sage grouse habitat) are often not supported by scientific research and often directly conflict with regional management guidelines for the species. The RMP standards almost always seek to exclude motorized access first, even if it is not identified as a concern in regional planning documents.

    7. The RMP proposes "optimize big game habitat". This standard is of significant concern as most of the planning office is mule deer habitat and optimizing this habitat would require removal of any use that could impact the mule deer, such as inadvertent striking of deer by motor vehicles on arterial roads. This lack of analysis for travel management related issues is a violation of NEPA's requirements for a detailed statement of high quality information of why decisions in the Plan have been made. If the required NEPA analysis had been undertaken, the fallacy of these positions would have been revealed to the persons who developed the RMP.


    8. The RMP proposes closure of all roads and trails on landlocked parcels to all motorized travel. No management issue is identified as the basis for this closure and this blanket closure will worsen issues on the significantly restricted trail system proposed in the future, as these landowners will now be forced to use other motorized recreational opportunities in the planning office.
  15. MotoMinded

    MotoMinded Rally On Super Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2006
    Oddometer:
    5,430
    Location:
    COS
    Deadline extended. If you have not yet.... Do it NOW!


  16. eddyturn

    eddyturn Eternal Wannabe Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2009
    Oddometer:
    3,298
    Location:
    Hesperus, CO
    I did it this morning. I feel better.
  17. shearboy2004

    shearboy2004 KIWIINUSA Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2007
    Oddometer:
    4,914
    Location:
    Ft Collins ,Colorado
    Done .
  18. airjammer

    airjammer Western Colorado

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2008
    Oddometer:
    611
    Location:
    USA
    My neighbor just brought me a petition to sign. Apparently, someone/something wants to close Escalante/Dominguez Canyon public space, to ALL use. Area is South of Grand Junction/Whitewater and extends into the Uncompaghre Plateau.

    Couldn't get the whole story. Anyone hear about this?
  19. Yellow Pig

    Yellow Pig Allergic to asphalt! Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2004
    Oddometer:
    9,315
    Location:
    SoCal -T.O.
    Here we go again:

    Rico-West Dolores lawsuit to shut down trails


    For any of you who have ever ridden the trails around Rico, you know how awesome they are. They don’t get a great deal of use because they are tucked away from the more popular riding areas. But they offer some of the most challenging and pristine single track in the state. I’ve ridden these trails a number of times (usually with my great tour guides from PAPA) and we almost never see anyone on them. The Plaintiffs simply want us out of the area. There is no valid reason for it. And because the USFS used proper discretion, they choose so sue them. Our access groups have joined with the USFS on this one.

    Now would be a good time to get out the checkbook and write one for a meaningful amount (at least a pair of tires). The groups that have engaged in this suit are truly partners, so you could donate to any of them, and they would be appreciative and it would go to the right place. If you want some tax advantage, the Colorado TPA is a 501c(3), so donations are tax deductible. Here are some options for you:


    Colorado TPA, http://coloradotpa.org/participate/donate.html (online donations)
    Trails Preservation Alliance
    PO Box 38093
    Colorado Springs , CO 80937

    COHVCO, via the web at http://www.COHVCo_Org
    P.O. Box 620523
    Littleton , CO 80162

    San Juan Trailriders via the web at http://www.sanjuantrailriders.org/membership.php

    Public Access Preservation Alliance (PAPA) via the web at: http://www.papatelluride.org/
    P.O. Box 4220
    Telluride , CO 81435


    Details: Recreation advocates today filed papers to join a lawsuit about motorized vehicle access to the Rico-West Dolores area in southwest Colorado managed by the San Juan National Forest. The lawsuit, filed in December 2011 by the Colorado Chapter of the Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, seeks to have specific trails declared off limits to motorized use. The Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition (COHVCO), Trails Preservation Alliance, San Juan Trail Riders, Public Access Preservation Association and BlueRibbon Coalition (BRC) today filed a motion to intervene and attain formal party status in the case. The Colorado groups and the BlueRibbon Coalition have previously worked together in responding to similar threats in Colorado and Utah. Collectively, the Recreation Groups have defended recreational access in dozens of lawsuits filed by preservationists across the country.
    "We have attempted to form meaningful partnerships with diverse interests, including the hunting and angling community. Active, effective management should be our common goal, not courtroom posturing," said John Bongiovanni, a COHVCO Director.
    The lawsuit is in its initial stages. The Forest Service’s answer is due on February 7, 2012. The schedule for presenting the merits of the case has not yet been established .
  20. Assfault

    Assfault Exposed Member Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2007
    Oddometer:
    5,230
    Location:
    RockyMountains
    Cross posted from another website.....


    Last year Representative Kevin Priola introduced legislation in Colorado to provide for a title and plate as an option for those who wanted more access to streets and roads with their OHVs to reach trailheads. The bill has been re-introduced as HB-1066 this year. Please remember purchasing a license plate is an option - you may still prefer to only purchase a Parks OHV registration sticker, staying off streets and roads, and only ride trails.

    What it Does

    A Uniform System to Regulate OHV Use on Roadways

    Colorado's current law does not provide for consistent use of ATVs on rural roads or in small communities. This creates a hardship for Colorado and out-of-state ATV enthusiasts. Registration and plating are optional, but address the issue of fairness. Persons who do not have a license plate and registration may ride trails if they choose.
    • Vehicles like ATVs cannot be operated in counties and cities with large populations without local government authorization
    • Vehicle use is limited to streets and roads with a speed limit of 45 mph or less. Travel distances are limited to 25 miles between trailheads
    • Requires eye protection, adequate safety equipment, insurance, a drivers license, OHV sticker and registration with plates
    • Requires a title to the vehicle only if you wish to plate it
    • This form of recreation provides great economic benefits to small communities
    • Keeps the OHV sticker program in place to maintain and improve trails
    • The bill retains the existing agricultural exemption for road use
    Arizona, Utah, Montana, Idaho, Wyoming and South Dakota provide limited access for ATV operation on roads. A Colorado District Court ruled these out-of-state plated ATVs legal and allows non-citizens the use of all roads while prohibiting Colorado's citizens from similar use.

    Surrounding states title ATVs to protect owners, purchasers and dealers from stolen vehicles, discourage theft, allow for return of stolen vehicles to their rightful owners and provide greater collateral protection for lenders and better financing opportunities.


    Those who can attend are encouraged to do so


    Legislators need to see your face.


    Whether you can attend or not please send an e-mail comment asking your Representative below (by county) to support the bill.

    Deadline for comments is Wednesday January 31, 2012

    Where to Meet and When the Bill will be heard

    Wednesday, February 1st the bill will be heard at 1:30 p.m.
    Room 0107 Transportation Committee
    HB 1066 Priola--Titling and Registering ATVs
    Basement floor of the State Capitol Building, enter through Security at the south ground level entrance beneath the Capitol steps.

    Colorado House Transportation Committee Jan-2012

    When e-mailing your comments to House Transportation Committee members, please remember to be respectful.

    Glenn Vaad - CHAIR - Colorado State Representative, District 48 - Weld County
    E-Mail: glenn.vaad.house@state.co.us

    Marsha Looper - VICE CHAIR - Colorado State Representative, District 19 - El Paso County
    E-Mail: marsha.looper.house@state.co.us

    Mark Barker - Colorado State Representative - District 17 - El Paso County
    E-Mail: mark.barker.house@state.co.us

    J. Paul Brown - Colorado State Representative - District 59 - Archuleta, La Plata, Montezuma and San Juan Counties
    E-Mail: jpaul.brown.house@state.co.us

    Randy Fischer - Colorado State Representative - District 53 - Larimer County
    E-Mail: randy.fischer.house@state.co.us or randyfischer@frii.com

    Millie Hammer - Colorado State Representative - District 56 - Eagle, Lake and Summit Counties
    E-Mail: millie.hamner.house@state.co.us

    Matt Jones - Colorado State Representative - District 12 - Boulder County
    E-Mail: repmattjones@gmail.com

    Robert Razirez - Colorado State Representative, District 29 - Jefferson County
    E-Mail: robert.ramirez.house@state.co.us

    Ray Scott - Colorado State Representative - District 54 - Mesa and Delta Counties
    E-Mail: ray.scott.house@state.co.us

    Max Tyler - Colorado State Representative, District 23 - Jefferson County
    E-mail: repmaxtyler@gmail.com or max@maxtyler.us

    Angela Williams - Colorado State Representative - District 7 - Denver County
    E-Mail: angela.williams.house@state.co.us

    Dave Young - Colorado State Representative - District 50 - Weld County
    E-Mail: dave.young.house@state.co.us

    <!-- / message --><!-- sig -->__________________