[Sanny651]

Well, as some of you may know there is a law put into effect last year that states no ATV can have snorkels 6" orhigher than the OEM intake. I felt this was wrong, so I wrote 2 representatives about this. One replied by stating he'd get back to me as he was "busy" (busy packing up his old office after being ousted during the last election) and the other lady told me that I should just obey the law...essentially shut up and sit down. I responded to the lady with a comment stating that my vote counted, as did the votes of the others that I would send her response to. She didn't reply.........she was voted out of office this past fall. NEXT!

So, now that our new representatives are in office and settled, I figured I'd light a fire under their behinds. Here is a letter I sent them. If you feel so compelled, feel free to drop them a line regarding the subject. The more that get in their face, the less they can run from it.

Sanny

 

[Millertime34]

Nice letter Todd...it will be interesting to see what kind of response you will get. You make some great points. It is interesting to use the comparison of a vehicles capabilities to the actula speed limit laws...this really puts the snorkle law into perspective for me. I personally have not been too concerned with the law mostly because I am too scared to alter my machine for fear I would make it run worse. (Not very mechanically inclined here. bang your head ) But I do agree with your letter and I would be on board with a change of that law. I wonder what the next steps would be in order to initiate a law change?

 

[Sanny651]

Well, to behonest I'm not really concerned about the snorkel law with regards to it's direct impact to me. I am, however, concerned about what may be next. Are they going to ban mudding type tires? What else are they going to shove our way? And what about those of us that have already modified our personal property to fit it to our liking? Is the state going to buy those people new plastics because they had holes in them from the snorkels they had to take out? Not likely.

It's just a flawed concept across the board, and I'm going to try and do something about it.

 

[Mesoam]

good letter but i'de bet they don't get back to you...these people serriously have nothing better to do, how about they crack down on real crime rather than harassing enthusiasts

 

[DiskDoctr]

Glad you're stepping up to do something, Todd.

Those who stand by idle simply give the message that they will accept anything that comes their way. Sure, they may complain, but if they aren't willing to step up and take some action, then why should a legislator pay any attention?

A legislator cares about two things.

1) Getting re-elected and staying employed

2) Keeping their constituents QUIET. (Not happy, they couldn't care less- but start making some noise and it endagers #1)

Can you put a petition on this site? You could have one that is MN specific, and one that is nationwide- spelling out the legislative abuse of ATV riders everywhere.

Put 10,000 signatures on a letter, and now you have an action committee!

If you don't get an acceptable response in a reasonable amount of time, let your legislator know that you will hold HIM/HER personnally responsible and are insulted that they didn't even take the time for the courtesy of a reply.

Give a fair time for responding, and don't expect miracles overnight. I wonder how many ATV riders are in MN? How many $$ are spent in MN for ATVs and accessories? Any tourism? What about the trail systems you mentioned?

A well written letter with a specific request for a specific action (remember, complaints don't matter), backed up by facts and lots of supporters are the beginnings of a good case for change.

I am not from MN, so can't do much for you there, but let me know if you want to do something nationwide

-DiskDoctr

 

[garyb]

Just have to keep the heat up. I suppose the have the same mentality that gun kill people. I guess snork harm the envioroment. Well good good things can happen. I just herd on the radio that in DC the US Supeme Court Just said the gun ban in DC was UNCONSTIUTIONAL................. There is ways hope..

 

[DiskDoctr]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (garyb @ Mar 9 2007, 05:53 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

I just herd on the radio that in DC the US Supeme Court Just said the gun ban in DC was UNCONSTIUTIONAL................. There is ways hope..[/b]

Garyb,

A few years ago I carried a pistol into DC police headquarters to "train police officers" and carried a Federal Firearms License (FFL) and a Class III (machine guns like M60s, etc) and they wanted to arrest me.

A private citizen was not permitted to have a gun in the DC city limits.

This "officer" was told by his superiors to put that problem somewhere without solar power ( ). The police force knew it wasn't constitutional, even back then.

MD denies almost all citizens a protection (concealed carry) permit, unless they can prove their life was threatened, or they handle large amounts of money, or something like that.

Like the MN law above. Just because it is law doesn't mean it's legal, or even logical. Stand up when you find something wrong. It's easier to find followers and supporters than it is to find leaders....

-DiskDoctr

 

[Sanny651]

NOt to get off the subject, but MN got a conceal law approved 3 years ago. I have one now. Great to have when hunting, fishing and ATV'ing. There are a bunch of goons out there. I've been at a bank robbery at a grocery store, so even when I'm going to get some creamed corn, I'm packin'.

Back on subject, I got a personal response from the guy within 10 minutes (not an auto-reply) so someone is at least paying attention. I'll give them each 2 weeks).

 

[frontiercat]

I think that the DC law has just been changed today. Good luck DC residents! Armed residents scare me...I have a concealed carry license and I saw all of the people who attended with me. Kind of scary, but with a lot of armed patriots, surely the crime rate will go down. Anyway, back on subject.....the issue is that once a single state gets these laws passed, it becomes easier for other states to follow suit. I feel the same about politics, but that is what we must deal with. Find out what your representatives believe in, back them and VOTE. Don't assume that your representatives are doing right for you, because they are doing what is right for them. They are greedy and inherently LAZY! Look at the vote registers, see how many times they are absent for votes, etc. It is all public record. Embarass them if necassary with such intel....

We as Americans can make changes, but it takes effort!

 

[Sanny651]

Effort I have. I'll see what they have to say.

 

[ArcticDad]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Sanny651 @ Mar 9 2007, 03:55 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

I felt this was wrong, so I wrote 2 representatives about this. One replied by stating he'd get back to me as he was "busy" (busy packing up his old office after being ousted during the last election) and the other lady told me that I should just obey the law...essentially shut up and sit down. I responded to the lady with a comment stating that my vote counted, as did the votes of the others that I would send her response to. She didn't reply.........she was voted out of office this past fall. NEXT![/b]

I've had a few occasions to write my representatives as well, and get the same response. If it's not in their political "agenda" they won't work with a person. The problem in North Dakota is that Huey, Dewey, and Louie carry too much clout and will continue to get re-elected.

Good job on a good fight Todd.

I would suggest an online petition, perhaps a guestbook?

Jay

 

[Sanny651]

Not sure how I'd go about doing an online petition. I could do a poll, but that wouldn't show who voted for what.

 

[kancoyote]

Keep fighting the good fight Todd. Now, if only KS and MN had reciprocity on CCH. :angry:
JD

 

[Sanny651]

Just got this response from one of the reps I emailed:
Well, boys, I'm suprised. I got a response from one of the two representatives. It is as follows:

Hi, Todd. I've now had a chance to review your e-mail in more detail. I regret to say that I'm a babe in the woods on ATV issues so I can't say that I understand the problem fully, although you have written pretty clearly.

But here's what I think the point you are trying to make: The restrictions on longer snorkels was meant to keep rogue ATVers from ripping up trails and these guys would theoretically need a longer snorkel to ride in deeper stuff. But you are saying that longer snorkels have a legitimate purpose and that better enforcement of rogue riders would be the better solution?

The policy deadline for bills is March 23rd, so bills that are not in the "hopper" by now will likely not get a hearing this session. If you know of a specific bill that has been introduced, please let me know and I'll get on it. If not, maybe we can meet sometime and you can explain in more detail so that I get it more clearly and help work on something for the 08 session.

As a member of the Environmental Finance Committee, I can tell you that enforcement is among our top priorities in the DNR budget.

Rep. Paul Gardner
Minnesota House of Representatives District 53A

Looks like I'm making some sort of progress anyways, even if it'll likely be next year if/when something changes.

 

[ArcticDad]

Chances are when this law was slipped by, that they only heard one side of the story.

Sounds like Mr. Gardner has a basic grasp of what you're shooting for.

I think you've picked a good battle.

Just curious, if it came down to having to cut something from the DNRs budget to pay for extra enforcement, where do you feel they are tossing away money now?

Jay

 

[DiskDoctr]

Sanny,

Keep up the good work! Just don't lean too hard on pushing for more enforcement as a contingency for correcting the "bad" law. If you tie "fixing the bad law" to "get more $$ for enforcement" it'll likely be delayed until they find more $$ for enforcement.

The comparison is good, and the logical vs illogical contrast is effective.

Now, just to write the new bill...got a sharp pen?

But, seriously, now may be the *perfect* time to compile an information packet for your rep on hydrolocking, how water can splash up, the damage done (scored cylinders- ouch!), and the fact that warranty is VOID on this $6k-$12k machine because of water in the cylinder.

Once he sees some good info of the risk of uncovered loss his constituents are facing, and the fact that this law is essentially *prohibiting* people from protecting their investments, he may understand better.

Don't know if you can get any stats from Arctic Cat or other groups as to how many ATVs are damaged by water in a given year and the estimated cost of repairs. They may not want to release that info, but it shouldn't be a risky or "at fault" piece of info for the ATV company.

You've found a good rep, it seems.

Here is the best advice I can give wrt political efforts.

1. Always be complete and correct. Don't skew any facts. Clearly distinguish fact from opinion and logical conclusions from speculation.

2. Cite your sources and always make sure they are reliable and respected in the industry.

3. Always be courteous, and direct in the *specific action* you wish taken.

4. Respond quickly to any requests for info or support.

5. Try to provide "quick study" guides for your proponent so he/she can speak intelligently and confidently on the subject in front of his peers and industry personnel. NEVER let them walk into an ambush unprepared or with incorrect info.

6. Find the best possible winning scenario to make your rep look good, caring, and intelligent.


If your rep is willing to listen and take on your cause, then do what you can to help your rep. Make them look good and give them anything you can to take as little of their time and mitigate as much risk as possible. After all, you want this person to keep fighting the good fight.

And with each success, you increase the odds of your rep taking on any future requests. Pick your battles carefully.

BTW, since you have a responsive rep, why not start a document "ATV Bill of Rights and Responsibililties" to set a national standard for rights, privileges, and responsibilities for all ATVers nationwide.

I'm sure a lot of people here would be willing to collaborate to make an effective document. It could be a great model for other states, too.

After all, your rep may need a bill to promote, and words like "Bill of Rights," "No Taxation without Representation," "Respect for the Environment," "Responsibility to fellow citizens," etc.... work well in the public eye.

Just a thought

-DiskDoctr

 

[trailhawk]

I can say this, the DNR has hired many new officers this past year or two, I got this from a DNR officer a couple weeks ago. So they have upped the enforcement force, just haven't gotten them out in the field as of yet from what he told me..
Good job on getting a reply back already Todd, just goes to show that a little effort in the writing of a letter may just do some good

 

[Sanny651]

Great responses guys! Jay, I'm not sure where they could rob peter to pay paul. I'd have to look at that. I'd pay more for my ATV registration or fishing license to pay for some extra eyes/ears out on the trail. They could even use volunteer "deputies" or something along those lines.

Doc, great info man. I'll be compiling some information from him. I'd like to work with him on a potential licensing program. I think that would reduce the amount of accidents/deaths due to users who are unable to control their ATV. It's obviously not going to eliminate injuries, but I think it can only help in reducing them. We have licenses for cars and motorcycles....why not ATV's on State owned trail systems? These quads are getting bigger and faster every day. I think it only makes sense.

Jimmer, I'm glad to hear they have more DNR folks. We'll see where they get allocated, be it the waterways to control poaching (which seems to be on the rise in recent years here in MN) or on the trails.

 

[DiskDoctr]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Sanny651 @ Mar 12 2007, 07:04 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

I'd like to work with him on a potential licensing program. I think that would reduce the amount of accidents/deaths due to users who are unable to control their ATV. It's obviously not going to eliminate injuries, but I think it can only help in reducing them. We have licenses for cars and motorcycles....why not ATV's on State owned trail systems? These quads are getting bigger and faster every day. I think it only makes sense.[/b]

IMHO, an *optional* training program may be attractive, but I wouldn't personnally support a licensing program. These are recreational vehicles, which would make it impossible to "train/license" someone for most situations. It could even lead to more accidents due to over confidence of riders.

I think of it sort of like tractors (riding mowers, too). You don't just put your 5 year old on one and let him go, but you don't have to send your teenager (or adult brother-in-law) to class to get a license to operate one, either.

At some point, people have to be responsible for themselves. It is good to have training available, but to mandate something would probably go in the opposite direction.

Consider for a moment your snorkel law position. Responsibility (self-imposed, or law enforced) takes priority and preference over legislation and laws. Keep that idea consistently, and you'll be serving all our interests.

Still, that being said, you are entitled to your opinion. Just in this case, I'd be on the opposite side of the debate from you.

Then we'd have to have an ATV "showdown" (Picture two quads at 50 paces revving and one of us saying, "This town ain't big enough for the both of us...snarl" ) to settle our differences. heh-heh.

But, seriously, you might want to think that licensing thing through a little more.

-DiskDoctr

 

[Hos650]

I'm not 100% on the licensing thing either. Iowa requires a registered and licensed ATV, ok fine. Where does that money go? To 4-5 ATV parks scattered across God's country, all of which are more than 2hr drive away from me. And b/c they can force me to have a license they can also dictate where I can ride..i.e. no ditches, no gravel roads (unless snow covered), and only in designated ATV riding areas. So basically I have a licensed vehicle I can ride on MY ground or THEIR 'designated' ground, where-ever in gods creation they decide to put it. And if I'm doing something crazy on my property, the almighty DNR still feels they can do something about it. Now, snow comes...snowmobiler's can ride every square inch of the country at mach 16, including the median of major 4 lane highways. Always a joy driving in the middle of winter with snowmobile headlights bobbing at you from the median eekkk . All any of these laws are, are the result of one pissed off persons complaint.

Must have sat on a thorn, sorry for the rant :devil_angry: