I may be unpopular for this opinion but.... I like it. If we can get kids and parents trained on how to ride, and the proper precautions, it can only be a good thing.

The downside is that the foot is in the door. Now it's easier for them to pass more laws or restrictions. This can get bad fast.

 

unpopular as it may seem, I think it is inevitable. But, if a state makes mandatory education a requirement, then they have a moral obligation to fund that training program, and ensure there are enough trainers available so they can get the required training in a reasonable time. In the state where I reside, I have been on the list over two years on one of my machines, and over 5 for the other. I finally got a date for my wife and I, only to have it cancelled due to weather... and now I am back on the "list", with no courses scheduled until the fall.

The upside is that if the state DOES make this investment, then they are probably committed to seeing the program succeed.. and that may evolve into increased spending on creating and improving riding areas... which would also mean a commitment to keeping them open so they get a return on their investment...Not a bad thing...not to mention the fact that they could be sued for misuse of those funds if they were used to build/improve an area and they later decided to close the trails.... It has been successfully argued in court and the government has been force to re-open riding areas because they had used federal funds to create them in the first place.. so it can work in our favor...

 

Why should the state fund the training? They don't fund pilots licenses, drivers licenses, fishing licenses, dog licenses etc. In todays budget slashing legislatures it is suicide to expect more un-funded services.

In Minnesota - within one year - over 400 volunteers have stepped up to the plate to become ATV instructors. Much like gun safety instructors or snowmobile instructors - these people are doing something about their concerns rather then sitting on their back sides and beeching about it.

We have to look at these issues throught the eyes of a politician who wants to both do the right thing - and get re-elected.

 

Who dat.. there has been much debate over the years concerning the Feds shifting many things to the states, but failing to fund them...for exactly the reasons you have stated. I see it to be somewhat the same.. if a state or federal aency mandates a particular program, or enacts a law, it has no meaning if they have no intent to provide the necessary resources to make it work. Which questions the intent when enacting legislation..

As for feds paying for education.. I didn' t say that, what I said was that there wa a moral obligation to make sure funds are available to guarantee the program's success. If the lawmakers truely want to see improved results, then funding should be part of the solution. If I can clarify... I see their funds going to establish the curriculum, and to manage the program... not to pay for the training costs themselves.