ATV ID Plates

[Di_bear]

:shock:

Wow.... was not aware of that. Obviously, neither are the several ATV users that visit Holdridge in the fall.

I wonder if there are "No Motorized Vehicles" signs that I don't remember or notice there. I'll have to pay attention when I get out to Holdridge when things dry out a bit.

I believe Holdridge currently has good DNR people overseeing that land, so it's worth it to bring that law up and request signage and enforcement. Holdridge is way to sensitive for ATVs.

[mr_opjones]

Handicapped are allowed to use an atv on state land for hunting

[Roy]

You all got off topic!
The main question was: should there be a Federal standard/requirement for ATV plates?
A State's rights issue!

Roy

[Critter7r]

Agreed, it's a State issue, just like license plates on vehicles. The LAST thing we need is more Federal involvement. There is no way to make an 'interstate-commerce' argument for the purpose of requiring some sort of national ID on ATVs. And riding your Idaho-registered ATV in Michigan is no more of an interstate-comerce reason to involve the Fed in ATV registration than driving your Michigan-plated car in Kentucky.

[dirt]

Agreed, it's a State issue, just like license plates on vehicles. The LAST thing we need is more Federal involvement. There is no way to make an 'interstate-commerce' argument for the purpose of requiring some sort of national ID on ATVs. And riding your Idaho-registered ATV in Michigan is no more of an interstate-comerce reason to involve the Fed in ATV registration than driving your Michigan-plated car in Kentucky.

This is a silly tangent of this discussion. Who should manage a program such as this? Whoever manages the land. Each state would probably want the ability to handle registration for ATVs riding on THEIR land, and I would expect that the federal government would want to manage any registration process for ATVs on federal land.

[utabintarbo]

Agreed, it's a State issue, just like license plates on vehicles. The LAST thing we need is more Federal involvement. There is no way to make an 'interstate-commerce' argument for the purpose of requiring some sort of national ID on ATVs. And riding your Idaho-registered ATV in Michigan is no more of an interstate-comerce reason to involve the Fed in ATV registration than driving your Michigan-plated car in Kentucky.

This is a silly tangent of this discussion. Who should manage a program such as this? Whoever manages the land. Each state would probably want the ability to handle registration for ATVs riding on THEIR land, and I would expect that the federal government would want to manage any registration process for ATVs on federal land.

As Federal lands generally reside physically within states, you have no objection to this obvious duplication of effort?

[dirt]

Agreed, it's a State issue, just like license plates on vehicles. The LAST thing we need is more Federal involvement. There is no way to make an 'interstate-commerce' argument for the purpose of requiring some sort of national ID on ATVs. And riding your Idaho-registered ATV in Michigan is no more of an interstate-comerce reason to involve the Fed in ATV registration than driving your Michigan-plated car in Kentucky.

This is a silly tangent of this discussion. Who should manage a program such as this? Whoever manages the land. Each state would probably want the ability to handle registration for ATVs riding on THEIR land, and I would expect that the federal government would want to manage any registration process for ATVs on federal land.

As Federal lands generally reside physically within states, you have no objection to this obvious duplication of effort?

Nope. The idea would be that you are registering your ATV with the LAND MANAGER.

You probably have a state park passport AND a Metro Park pass, even though they are all in the same state.

[Critter7r]

Agreed, it's a State issue, just like license plates on vehicles. The LAST thing we need is more Federal involvement. There is no way to make an 'interstate-commerce' argument for the purpose of requiring some sort of national ID on ATVs. And riding your Idaho-registered ATV in Michigan is no more of an interstate-comerce reason to involve the Fed in ATV registration than driving your Michigan-plated car in Kentucky.

This is a silly tangent of this discussion. Who should manage a program such as this? Whoever manages the land. Each state would probably want the ability to handle registration for ATVs riding on THEIR land, and I would expect that the federal government would want to manage any registration process for ATVs on federal land.

As Federal lands generally reside physically within states, you have no objection to this obvious duplication of effort?

I think as long as your ATV is registered in your state, and the management practices of xxx National parkland in some other state allows such vehicles, then it is ok to ride there. Not to put words on his page, but I don't know that the author of the linked article meant to bring a Federal vs State argument, I think he just wants bigger license plates on ATVs and he wants the whole country to have bigger license plates, so he used the word Federal to invoke the whole country. But maybe he could just start with Idaho. (And besides, the Federal gov't has been in the news so much the past few years that many people are starting to forget that there are States' laws and just think everything comes from Washington and think that the States are just there to do whatever 'Washington' tells them).

[KLydesdale]

Handicapped are allowed to use an atv on state land for hunting

Yeah but I believe the law only allows them to do that on state forest roads. They're still not allowed on singletrack in recreation areas.

[Critter7r]

Agreed, it's a State issue, just like license plates on vehicles. The LAST thing we need is more Federal involvement. There is no way to make an 'interstate-commerce' argument for the purpose of requiring some sort of national ID on ATVs. And riding your Idaho-registered ATV in Michigan is no more of an interstate-comerce reason to involve the Fed in ATV registration than driving your Michigan-plated car in Kentucky.

This is a silly tangent of this discussion. Who should manage a program such as this? Whoever manages the land. Each state would probably want the ability to handle registration for ATVs riding on THEIR land, and I would expect that the federal government would want to manage any registration process for ATVs on federal land.

As Federal lands generally reside physically within states, you have no objection to this obvious duplication of effort?

Nope. The idea would be that you are registering your ATV with the LAND MANAGER.

You probably have a state park passport AND a Metro Park pass, even though they are all in the same state.

That's a little different... Unless a Metro Park is located within a State Park or vice versa, there isn't any duplication of effort that would occur because Federal land is located within a state's borders.

[utabintarbo]

Agreed, it's a State issue, just like license plates on vehicles. The LAST thing we need is more Federal involvement. There is no way to make an 'interstate-commerce' argument for the purpose of requiring some sort of national ID on ATVs. And riding your Idaho-registered ATV in Michigan is no more of an interstate-comerce reason to involve the Fed in ATV registration than driving your Michigan-plated car in Kentucky.

This is a silly tangent of this discussion. Who should manage a program such as this? Whoever manages the land. Each state would probably want the ability to handle registration for ATVs riding on THEIR land, and I would expect that the federal government would want to manage any registration process for ATVs on federal land.

As Federal lands generally reside physically within states, you have no objection to this obvious duplication of effort?

Nope. The idea would be that you are registering your ATV with the LAND MANAGER.

You probably have a state park passport AND a Metro Park pass, even though they are all in the same state.

That's a little different... Unless a Metro Park is located within a State Park or vice versa, there isn't any duplication of effort that would occur because Federal land is located within a state's borders.

Oddly enough, my vehicle's license plate is valid in both Metro Parks and National Parks, even though it is registered through the State. And the State Park passport and MetroPark sticker are evidence of the payment of user fees, not registration with the land manager. But I understand that such details may escape the notice of some.

[dirt]

Agreed, it's a State issue, just like license plates on vehicles. The LAST thing we need is more Federal involvement. There is no way to make an 'interstate-commerce' argument for the purpose of requiring some sort of national ID on ATVs. And riding your Idaho-registered ATV in Michigan is no more of an interstate-comerce reason to involve the Fed in ATV registration than driving your Michigan-plated car in Kentucky.

This is a silly tangent of this discussion. Who should manage a program such as this? Whoever manages the land. Each state would probably want the ability to handle registration for ATVs riding on THEIR land, and I would expect that the federal government would want to manage any registration process for ATVs on federal land.

As Federal lands generally reside physically within states, you have no objection to this obvious duplication of effort?

Nope. The idea would be that you are registering your ATV with the LAND MANAGER.

You probably have a state park passport AND a Metro Park pass, even though they are all in the same state.

That's a little different... Unless a Metro Park is located within a State Park or vice versa, there isn't any duplication of effort that would occur because Federal land is located within a state's borders.

But, it's NOT state land. Why would you register with the DNR to ride on land that the DNR doesn't manage. Doesn't matter that it's located within the state, the state doesn't have jurisdiction.

Center Line is completely surrounded by Warren, but it's still not Warren. Doesn't matter if it's within Warren, but it's not Warren.

I don't think there should be a national registration to have an ATV, I think this should be left up the manager of the land you ride on. If they want it, fine, and if they don't, fine. But, people can split hairs all day long, but at the end, the only thing that makes real sense is that each land manager is allowed to manager their land, and the ATV/ORVs on it. You want to ride on THEIR land, you register with the, if they require that.

[Critter7r]

Oddly enough, my vehicle's license plate is valid in both Metro Parks and National Parks, even though it is registered through the State. And the State Park passport and MetroPark sticker are evidence of the payment of user fees, not registration with the land manager. But I understand that such details may escape the notice of some.

And so an ORV registration (an ATV's "license plate", if you will) should be (and is) valid in both State and National Parks, Yet, you still have to pay a user fee to enter either.

[Critter7r]

But, it's NOT state land. Why would you register with the DNR to ride on land that the DNR doesn't manage. Doesn't matter that it's located within the state, the state doesn't have jurisdiction.

Center Line is completely surrounded by Warren, but it's still not Warren. Doesn't matter if it's within Warren, but it's not Warren.

I don't think there should be a national registration to have an ATV, I think this should be left up the manager of the land you ride on. If they want it, fine, and if they don't, fine. But, people can split hairs all day long, but at the end, the only thing that makes real sense is that each land manager is allowed to manager their land, and the ATV/ORVs on it. You want to ride on THEIR land, you register with the, if they require that.

That would be like having to register your car in every county/city/municipality that you drive thru.

[Roy]

The writer of the ATV article is a leader of an Idaho advocacy group against motorized back woods hunting, Backcountry Hunters & Anglers. http://www.backcountryhunters.org/
I smelled a hidden agenda, I just jumped to the wrong conclusion that it was big government. His real agenda is to ban all ATV from Idaho's back country.
Basically his article is showing ATV riders in a bad light in a way you don't realize the agenda when you read it. He used ATV ID plate size as a red herring. We all fell for it. I smelled liberal when I should of smelled ultra conservative???

Has Advocacy come to the point where double blind articles need to be seeded into the Public's subconscious?
It would be like: Todd Scot writing a article for a Royal Oak advertising rag about the need for Horses at Maybury to wear bells, to warn hapless hikers. Then show a muddy horse path cutting thru the beautiful green landscape. Unless you knew about Todd's prior connection to MMBA and the current fight about House ridding on public land, you would not realized the connection. All you would take away would be Horses and a torn up muddy environment.

Is this an advocacy tacit that should be use?

Roy

Every day example:
Every news paper will have short stories about Service (Army, Navy, Air-force ) men or women in your neighbor who just graduated from basic training. The papers get this information from Military press releases, a form of grass roots propaganda. I only know this because I worked for the Army Chief of Information.