Senate Bill 0875

TRANSPORTATION VEHICLES: TN Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Act.
Requires owners of off-highway motor vehicles (OHVs) to annually register with the executive director of the TN wildlife resources agency. Imposes a $45.00 registration and renewal fee on OHVs. Requires TN wildlife resources commission to establish safety requirements for riders on publicly owned or leased lands. Also requires riders 18 years of age to wear a helmet. (11 pp.) (S: Ramsey)

http://www.legislature.state.tn.us/b...ILL/SB0875.pdf

 

About time. I just hope the money stays in the ORV areas for maintainence and development. I also hope this developes into a state-wide fee system for riding in all state areas. Right now, Royal Blue has a $50 a year fee. I've been a little worried that all individual TWRA areas will develop their own individual fees - that could rack up after a while. As it is now I pay $50 to ride RB and $50 for Coal Creek (which is private land and not part of the state system). $100 bucks a year ain't bad for several hundred square miles of riding areas.

Jaybee

 

The text of the bill does not indicate that it would necessarily go toward the construction and maintenance of additional riding opportunities.

The reason I posted this topic is that I feel it is extremely important to address these issues on the frontend rather than waiting until TWRA takes control. For example, I serve as the executive director of the Tennessee Firearms Association (www.tennesseefirearms.com) and we track about 60 bills just this year. This OHV bill came up on my filter search of all pending Tennessee legislation.

The point is, if ATV owners want particular legislation, we need to make sure the sponsoring legislators KNOW it. We have to call them, write them and email them. We cannot assume that they ride ATV's much less have a favorable attitude toward them. Unless it is clear that the legislation is sponsored by a pro-ATV club or legislator, we must assume it is a government agency's legislation.

 

I just read the entire bill and still think it looks like they are on the right track. Parts of it say:

To keep ORV management self supporting - one purpose of the money is to purchase additional riding land. (Granted, they will purchase "existing" areas but this will keep the usage for ORV's open)

Form a Technical Advisory Committee wich includes dealers, clubs and riders to advise on ORV usage.

*************************************

I agree that this needs to be watched but the first read makes it sound like ORV legislation in other states - states that actually promote ORV use rather than look at it as an environmental hazzard.

Jaybee

 

Good points. Raises the question of whether there is any organization in the state that has a legislative committee/officer who is watching for these issues. I work in Nashville and donate time to serve as the executive director and lobbyist for the Tennessee Firearms Association (www.tennesseefirearms.com). In the process of scanning new legislation, I ran across this. Now I am wondering whether anyone is "watching" out for the interests of off-roaders in the state at the legislative level.

 

I have only had a cursory look at the bill, but here are some of my initial concerns:

1. Section 1. It is being added to Title 70, the wildlife resources act but it purports to be a registration statute for motorized vehicles which normally falls under Title 55. Title 70 is usually administered by TWRA, an agency, as opposed to say the conservation department.

2. Section 3. It purpose is stated as "management" rather than expansion and promote. In government talk, "management" means to restrain a growing problem. Note the mention of "environmental damage" and "loss of economic prospects" (ie, state revenue or use of state property for other economically beneficial purposes)

3. Section 4. "Owner" is not defined to be only residents of this state. Thus, those who might come in for a special event could be possibly required to "register"

4. Section 5(a). The bill should specifically state to exclusion what information is required for registration - if NOT, TWRA can add all kinds of personal information to the list. Also, the information should be flagged as confidential to keep businesses from purchasing the ownership list and to keep potential thievs from purchasing the shopping list.

5. Section 5(b) - they omit the "lifetime sportsman" license which costs $1200, last time I checked. Are the lifetime sportsman paying $45 or $10 or, as with other aspects of the lifetime sportsman license, are they exempt.

6. Section 5(b) - appears to allow TWRA to increase the fee annually based upon the CPI. This should go back to legislature and NOT be left to TWRA.

7. Section 5(d) duplicates 5(a).

8. Section 5(e). Registration exemption should not be limited to land which the registrants owns or manages. What happens to the land that I lease or borrow for hunting purposes. What happens to the hunting lands owned by private interests, e.g. timber tracts, that I purchase access rights to use. What about land that I have access to that is owned by grandparents, aunts, uncles and "friends"? None of these are exempt and I am sure that the state is not going to kick back money to them for "improvement." What about the national forests and parks that the state has no jurisdiction over? In my opinion, the registration fee should - if it is required - only be required for those who are using the OHV's on state owned and managed property that is included for use by OHV. In that same reguard, why register the individual OHV as opposed to the operators - such as the access fees that the parks are charging? Parks are not registering the transportation but the users. Why should OHV owners pay more or be taxed differently than campers, RV owners, hikers, etc?

9 Section 6(4) (I am not sure what Section 5 uses a.b.c and Section 6 uses 1.2.3) TAX, TAX, TAX!!!!!

10 Section 6(5) - I still don't see anything about increasing or expanding access - I keep seeing "management" which is exclusionary.

11. Section 6(7). The statute does not REQUIRE the use of available lands under the control of other agencies but only "encourages" its use. State departments do not cooperate. They have a "mine" attitude and are concerned about things like insurance and "what if we need it for something else...." NOTE that is in NOT THE INTENT to make wildlife areas (the only thing TWRA has control over) open to OHV use.

12. Section 6(9) is legislative speak for nothing happens. The legislature has no power over land owned by the federal government. It can encourage but cannot mandate.

13. Section 6(10) Make investigations and inspections of what?

14. Section 7(1) the bill speaks of a $45 registration ($10 for hunters) annual registration fee. These are separate and apart from these "capital" and "rider" fees.

15. Section 7(2) - what type of "safety requirements" are contemplated? DUI? Speed limits? Power restrictions? Tire restrictions? Passenger limits? Weight limits? - Too much delegation to TWRA.

16. Section 7(3) TWRA given the power to promulgate any other rules "reasonable" and "necessary" - this is not legislation it is blanket delegation of authority to TWRA to let it do what it wants. There is not even a requirement for a OHV board - it is all left to TWRA's commissioner and its existing oversight system

17. Section 8(a) - What is the purpose of this "capital fee" that the dealer's collect and remit to the state - other than just another tax on purchases? It is in addition to the registration and there are NO exemptions for OHV's sold for personal property use as there are under

18. Section 8(b) - County clerks also charge a "capital fee" and a service charge. Is this in addition to the capital fee charged by dealers or is it like sale tax - due on each transfer. Although the "capital fee" is later set, there is no real standard on the county charges. There are 95 different county clerk and this would allow 95 different fees that they could justify as "reasonable" depending on their on justifications - some may charge none and other could charge $10, $25, $50 - any limit as long as they thought it was "reasonable" to handle the extra employee to do the extra accounting to keep track of and remit the "capital" fee to the state. Once again, it is still not clear if the capital fee gets paid twice.

19. Section 8(d). The capital fee is $25 for OHV's up to $2500 and, in my opinion, $75 on most new OHV's purchased because most new OHV's cost (with all the stuff the statute includes) $5,000 and up. Out of state sales are not exempt. In state purchases from out of state are not exempt. Private use sales (those who will not or may never be driven on state owned property are NOT exempt).

20. Section 9 - "Rider fees" for "unregistered" OHV's used primarily for on-highway use. That definition makes no sense to me unless they are talking about registered motorcycles and ALL OTHER VEHCILES such as cars, trucks, SUV's etc. Does this mean of so-and-so state park has an OHV area that my pickup truck now has to pay a "rider fee" to go in the park?? The "per day" and "multiday" provisions are more trouble in terms of record keeping than they are worth.

21. Section 10. What is a "farm" - is my 400 acre hunting lease a farm? There are not animal or crops grown on the tract? Who "approves" these vehicles "exclusively" for farm use? what does "exclusively" in commercial use mean? Does a vehicle use "exclusive" status if it is occassionally used or loaned for hunting, utility purposes or even playing in the snow??? According to the statute, use of the farm ATV off the "farm property" removes the exclusion. This means, in a very technical application, that the exception is practically nonexistent.

22. Section 11(b) Requirement of self-funding - why? We are all already tax payers. Why should the use of public lands for all other purposes - golf, motels, swimming, hiking, camping, sports, RV's, etc., be allowable from the general fund and/or other access fees but OHV programs have to be fully funded from the backs of OHV operators. This is once again a concern because unless the fee stream is materially esculated - it will not result in the purchase or expansion of riding opportunities.

23. Section 12. This is simply stupid. The law already has a provision prohibiting trespass. Why put this in to muddle the issue?

24. Section 13. Why a Class B misdemeanor? A class B has fines up to $500 per incident and possible jail of up to 6 months. Why give TWRA that much power?

25. Section 14(b) - suspend the "privilege" of obtaining a registration for "not less than" one year - is there a maximum period? Why not? Why a year? What if the owner is "prohibited" does that prohibit the whole family from riding that OHV on any state property for a year?

26. Section 14(c) - Contraband ??? on 2nd or subsequent offense. This just asks for problems. At worse, these should be like traffic tickets - not CRIMES to be arrested for. This means that OHV's which can cost easily up to $10,000 are going to be sold (after being used for up to 2 years by the state) and the proceeds added to what? The geneal fund? This does not even plow the proceeds back into the OHV program.

27. Section 16 - Creates a conflict of interest within the TWRA commission because it is required to protect wildlife and the environment while at the same time promoting an activity that is not necessarily good for the wildlife or the environment because OHV activities influence each.


In sum, while I would agree that the state should promote OHV opportunities in this state - I am convinced that this proposed statute DOES NOT DO THAT and would instead have negative consequences for ATV owners in general whether they ride on "public lands" or "private property."