Anyone who want’s good, solid information on the Wisconsin ATV Weight Limit should visit this thread.

http://www.atvtracks.com/forum/atvtalk/35.html

This is the discussion board on the Wisconsin ATV Association website, and more specifically as of this morning a thread including an exchange between me and it’s president, Randy Harden. Randy has taken the time to describe the events leading up to where we stand right now with this issue and future steps that may or may not need to be taken.

I encourage all who may be affected by this oppressive legislation to become involved. If you don’t want to write letters or can’t attend public hearings at least offer your support by joining the WATVA. The cost of your membership will be repaid in the protection and promotion of our sport. You can join online at

http://www.watva.org/joinwatva.htm

If we ignore our responsibility to protect our riding privileges they will go away. Thanks!

 

What do they class a 6 wheel drive Polaris,Argo,Max and the larger 8 wheel models as?Are the considered ATVs also?

 

Good question Tim. You may find the answer somewhat amusing. The Sportsman 6x6 falls outside of the legal description of any registerable vehicle. As such, it can only be operated lawfully on private property. Making the assumption that the current weight limit is to address the concern that heavier machines have more environmental impact, even with its overall weight, by the virtue of its six wheels this vehicle applies less psi to the ground than a typical utility 4x4. And don’t expect to be doing any power-slides with this puppy. As an owner of one of these machines I don’t find this situation amusing at all, but the Max/Argo registration is a different story.

The legal definition of an ATV requires that it have a saddle, or a seat that’s straddled. Since the amphibious 6x6 machines have bench seats they have to be registered as boats. Yep, that’s right. That makes them legal in the water but illegal everywhere but, once again, private property. They can’t be lawfully ridden on ATV trails. We’ve owned Max machines since ’93 and currently own a ’97 Max IV (four passenger unit). All of these have been registered as boats.

We’re fortunate in this state to still enjoy many wilderness areas. Most of these are far enough away from the Madison bureaucrats that these ridiculous classifications and restrictions aren’t rigidly enforced. Unfortunately the DNR wardens are stuck in the middle, saddled with the responsibility of enforcing these restriction whether they make sense in the real world outside the state capitol or not. In many of these areas a sympathetic warden will give his permission on a per-ride basis to operate these nonconforming machines within his/her jurisdiction. That doesn’t help with the current dilemma of not being able to register new machines over 650# though.

 

A theory:

The Wisconsin 650-pound weight limit was derived from the Japanese ATV manufacturers' regulation/agreement, mandating a 606-pound maximum dry weight for ATV's manufactured in Japan.

The 650-pound Wisconsin limit provides a reasonable cushion of variability to accommodate ATV's meeting the Japanese ATV industry manufacturing standards.

Diogenes

 

Hmmm, are you suggesting that this limitation was based on some desire to level the playing field for trade? Interesting theory but based on the evolution of the law as described by the president of the Wisconsin ATV Association, I don’t think that’s it.

 

Im not understanding this weight issue?Who cares if your on a 800lb ATV and why?Does an 800lb ATV do more damage to the trails than a 4000lb 4x4 PU truck thats cruising thru the forest trails while scouting out our favorite hunting site?I dont think so and im amazed at all the legal aspects involved at what I perceive as a useless worry.

Can someone please help me make some sense as to why the weight resrtictions and why?I sure dont understand it as of yet,thanks,
Bill

 

I'm suggesting a plausible scenario where: a state bureaucrat, tasked to draft a regulation on ATV maximum weight for definition purposes, calls up an ATV manufacturer, asking, "How much does an ATV weigh?"

The ATV industry representative say, "The Japanese ATV manufacturers, by agreement/regulation, build to a maximum dry weight of 606 pounds."

The WI state bureaucrat says, "Uh-huh;" then, knowing how much an ATV weighs, he writes his regulation, rounding-up the maximum weight figure to 650 pounds.

My scenario is pure conjecture; speculation only. Anyone else's account is as good as or better than mine.

Diogenes

 

The weight “limit” began when the state first began registering ATVs due to their gaining popularity. That was back in the days of ATCs. They came up with a legal definition of an ATV based on the machines that were currently available without the foresight of where the industry/sport would be going. At that time the weight of the machine was really a non-issue and was treated as such. No one saw it as a limitation, it was just part of the description. Over the years the legal definition has not kept pace with the marketplace. The DNR, realizing this, (they don’t make the laws they just enforce them) kept registering vehicles even though they knew the heavier ones fell outside the designated weight definition. I guess they just figured the law would catch up to the market eventually and they wanted the revenue from registration.

Only recently has the weight become an issue, and with only a tiny minority blocking its increase or elimination. Right now I can only speculate as to what their reasons are or agenda is. Since the resistance is coming from the liberal side of the spectrum I think that narrows our eligible guesses about their motives but I’d still be making assumptions at this point.

I’d like to know what their reasons are too. For the life of me, I can’t think of a reason that would make sense, but as soon as I can pinpoint the opposition I plan to ask them their reasons directly.

 

I understand your thought process, I only wish the weight description was founded in something that “innocent.” If it was there would be little debate in correcting it. Attempts to legislatively “update” the current ATV definition have been either shot down or ignored, leaving us where we are now – fightin’ mad!

 

Floodrunner,
dont feel real bad,in Michigan,we to are going thru alot of BS with some of our laws,especially the legal aspects of an ATV/ORV.

In Mich,a ORV is defined as ANY motor driven vehicle that can be driven cross country without the benifit of a road or trail over land,snow,and other natural terrain,which included multi track and wheeled vehicles,atvs,motorcycles,and related 2,3 wheeled vehicles,amphibious machines,hovercraft and any other vehicles that use mechanical power,including 2 and 4 wheeled drive vehicles that are highway registered,when operated off highways and roads.

Atvs are defined as a 3 or 4 wheeled vehicles that is designed for off road use,that has low pressure [ballon type] tires,with a seat that is designed to be straddled by the operator,powered by an engine in size from 50cc on up to 500cc displacement.

Whats that make an Raptor,a DS 650,and a Grizzly,the new 650 Kawi?They are ALL over 500cc!
One might say that that falls into a ORV catagorie,but if thats the case,you should be able to register it for the road.Remember the description of an ORV?It says INCLUDING 2 and 4 wheeled vehicles that are highway registered,and these quads are also vehicles that exceeed the legal description of a ATV because they exceed 500cc.What are they?The DNR dont know either.Anyways,why dont we just call them all ATVs instead of sub grouping them,it makes things very confusing?
Bill