1810 State Street. #108, Boise, ID 83702
S. 1001
S. 1001 is a responsible and needed piece of legislation. In order to understand why the Idaho Recreation Council supports this legislation, it is important to understand the background and how and why we got where we are.
In the Forest Service’s 2005 OHV Rule, there was a requirement that each National Forest analyze safety issues resulting from mixed uses on their roads. The Regional Foresters from Region 1 and 4 determined that since Idaho had a law requiring all OHV riders to be licensed, safety wasn’t an issue here and no analysis was needed. In 2009, however, Idaho law was changed and unlicensed OHV riders were allowed to ride on Forest Service roads to connect from one trail to another if they were supervised.
This change immediately caught the attention of the Regional Foresters who determined that the change required them to now do the mixed use analysis. The Idaho Recreation Council, fearing the closure of many roads to OHVs, agreed to support legislation that would require ‘all unlicensed riders to be trained using a state (Idaho, Oregon, Utah, etc) approved program’. Such legislation was introduced in the 2010 session of the Idaho Legislature, but went nowhere. An improved version, S 1001 was introduced by Senator McGee this year.
Needless to say, this news was not well received by the Forest Service. However, Governor Otter and Senator John McGee sent letters to the Regional Foresters asking for one more year to pass the legislation. Officials from the Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation, at the request of the Idaho Recreation Council, sent letters to every registered OHV owner urging them to have every unlicensed rider take the free on-line safety course.
The Forest Service relented and agreed not to make ‘any decisions’ until after the 2011 legislative session. However, they did require every forest to begin to identify roads of concerns; roads where there have been accidents or where circumstances exist that make accidents more likely.
If S. 1001 passes, the issue does not go away, but it does eliminate many of the Forest Service’s concerns. One forest determined their roads of concern based on the legislation passing. If that doesn’t happen, more roads will be included in the roads of concern category. If the legislation fails, the forests will still be considering opportunities to improve safety by putting up signs, brushing the right of way, or providing a parallel trail. On roads considered unsafe, such as paved two-way routes with mixed uses, they could restrict OHV use
The second issue addressed in S. 1001 is the definition of supervision. Some people felt that the wording was not specific enough and that there might be some confusion as to whether a person was supervised or not. This bill clarifies the definition by requiring the supervising adult to be in a position to provide close support, assistance or direction to the unlicensed operator. Also included is a specific distance if the supervising adult is not on an OHV.
Additional information based on questions and comments concerning S 1001
1. Why does the existing law focus on 16 years of age?
Existing law exempts anyone "...under the age of 16 years..." from the requirement of having a drivers license when operating "...on roads on federal orstate land..."
We anticipate that most young operators will have a driver's license at age 16. As worded 16 years of age is the maximum age at which the exemption applies; therefore anyone older than 16 must have a license. This precludes someone over 16 who has not obtained or has lost their driving privileges from being able to use their ATV on roads
2. Why does the law not address a minimum age for training?
Youngsters grow at different rates. Some are able to fit on a machine at a younger age than others. The only requirement for the existing training course is that the child be able to fit on the machine and be able to operate the controls. This allows parents to determine when their children should be allowed to operate a machine.
3. If unlicensed riders can operate "....on roads on federal and state lands..." won't the training be required for all agencies as well?
The training requirement in this bill is specifically limited to unlicensed operators on national forest roads. Trained operators may ride in other jurisdictions but the training will not be a requirement.
4. What would be the impact of simply eliminating the driver's license exemption put in place by S. 1098?
Federal land managers have federal codes that allow them to apply state laws on their roads and trails. Eliminating the exemption would put all trail riding families in jeopardy, since enforcement officers could target families riding together on roads and issue citations for failure to have a drivers license. On most public land trail systems, use of roads are necessary to connect from one trail to another. This use of roads is essential to having a quality recreation experience. Elimination of the exemption would result in closure of the roads to families and a substantial loss of recreation opportunities.
5. Many times, county roads cross National Forest land and look like Forest Service roads. How can a person tell them apart?
The Forest Service Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM) shows all Forest Service roads that are designated for motor vehicle travel. These maps do not identify county roads as designated routes. Riders need to have an MVUM to know where to ride and therefore will be able to differentiate between county and FS roads.
The Idaho Recreation Council believes S. 1001 is sound legislation for the following reasons:
- Youth training will emphasize responsible use of OHVs and will reduce irresponsible activities and associated impacts.
- When youth are trained, they will be able to communicate responsible use messages to adults and parents.
- Adoption of a training requirement will reduce the concerns of many Forest Service officials and will reduce the need to close FS roads to OHV use.
- Training on road signing and other on-road issues will make young riders safer.
- Training will not be required for youth who just use trails, thereby reducing the impact of the mandate.
We sincerely believe that passage of this legislation will greatly reduce the Forest Service issues and concerns and better allow us to fight to keep public access available to Idaho residents and visitors to our state as well.
Thank you for your consideration of this important issue and please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or need additional information