Senator Tieszen wants ATV's off the roadways

[GCHunter]

Last night on KOTA 5:30 news they interviewed Sen. Craig Tieszen. Senator Tieszen wants ATV's off the road. Check out the video and article at http://www.kotatv.com/Global/story.asp?S=11804660 .

I'm not giving up my plates without a battle. :-)

[Just Me]

why would the Senator take everyone including me when I plow snow all winter with my atv and need to drive on hard surface roads. according to what I know of his bill is he also wants to charge ATV's for a trail system and then have environmentalist say how to spent the money.

[CN67]

what a fag!  He needs more reason than his opinion to get us of the streets.  I don't think he should be in the senant or whatever, lets vote his ass out!!

[Grumpy 1]

I hope many of you in Eastern SD can get to the Boy Toy's show in Sioux Falls this week end and let the ATV owners know about The Senators "bill" to get them off hard surface roads all across the state.  Plus charge for a state trails permit for your ATV and then put enviromentlist on a committee to spend your money.  Remember you can see the "bill" at www.southdakotaatv.com  Take a petition along and have them sign that.  Thanks

[racingvillagekid]

I have to say that rather than just sit and complain, I did some research. Has anyone questioned what happens with our kids when we want to take them riding. They cant have a motorcycle plate because of age. Wont a trail system open the door for them to ride? The plate is a motorcycle plate and I am not sure but what happens when motorcyclists decide they dont want us using it anymore? I also found out that if you plan on taking your kids to the Black Hills you had better be careful where you ride. Even thou there will be a trail system, alot of what people call trials are actuallly system roads and you would have to have a motorcycle plate to ride them. Once again leave your kids at home or you dirt bikes better make sure you have a plate.( if you can plate it) Dealers have alot to gain by encouraging riding areas. Rather than just selling an atv to a single person there is potential to sell enough for a whole family.  I saw the word tourism come up. Now that one was a quick thought. OUT OF STATE RIDERS CANT GET A MOTORCYCLE PLATE IN SOUTH DAKOTA. So where would tourism even begin to gain anything from the motorcyle plate? I am just trying to be the devils advocate here and hopefully open up your minds some and understand that I personally see  huge advantages to supporting a state trail system. Just my two cents worth and I would gladly give up my plate for a fun riding area or trail system. I guess I never knew that developing a riding area in my part of South Dakota was an option. When my son is old enough I can only hope he and I will be able to ride together.

[Thumper700]

The only "trail system" that I'm aware of is in the Black Hills.  That does no good for the majority of the state's population that is East River with nowhere to ride.

[Thumper700]

Oh, and the closest trail system to me that I can ride is in Appleton, MN.  I can't bring my kid's little 90 with me either because it can't be liscenced in my state.  I sure wish SD could get some real riding areas like MN has, but Minnesota's government funds theirs, so I'm not holding my breath.

[toodeep]

Having a street legal atv and a atv trail system should not even be in the same discussion. They are 2 totally different matters. I don't buy an atv to ride as if it was a motorcycle but I like the option of being able to legally ride it across town if needed. More trail systems in the state would be nice but very unlikely, they are only worried about the trails in the hills from what I've read.

[Grumpy 1]

I have been preaching for years that a state wide ATV trail system is needed.  I have property in three East river countys and one west river.  I spent 48 years in Eastern SD and the balance of the 74 west river and if East river gets behind this and a state wide trail system can then be developed and not only in the Black Hills.   If Eastern Sd doesn't get behind a state wide trail system then you can bet it will never happen.   I can visulize one In NE SD near Sica Hollow one down by Canton some along the Lakes on the river and even purchasing easements or land.  Please look at the bill it takes you off hard surface roads but allows local juistiction to change that, (which is backwards, let them close it rather than open it) It is a state wide sticker program that llows this to happen.  See the bill at wwww.southdakotaatv.com.

[Grumpy 1]

How many of you are familiar with Iroquois on the Beadle/Kingsbury county line.  That county line road South of Iroquois is Kingsbury's and North of Iroquois is Beadle County's.  then You have the town hard surface road and then state highway 14.  Or look at the other side of the county Arlington which sets on the Kingsbury/Brookings county line and has two state highways to contend with plus city and county government..  This bill would require you to get each government to give you permission to ride your ATV on those plus the town.  why not amend the bill and let a government entity close what every they want and leave the rest alone.  Save the controlling government a lot of advertizing for ordanances. Read the bill at www.southdakotaatv.com

[racingvillagekid]

The whole idea of this bill is to open up statewide riding areas and trail system isnt it? The funding would come from us with a sticker program. The Black Hills has their own programs coming and it will also have to be funded. Who knows maybe the forest service will let the state run the trails out there. Ok I am a little confused with Grumpy saying he supports this trail system bill yet he has beat it up silly. More people will benefit from road riding with the passage of this bill than without it. Hard surfaced roads are the only setback and with the writing to allow for cities and counties to rule in our favor as far as keeping them open what is to lose? Heck I can still ride down for coffee with my cities approvel and I am sure they will go for it. Looks to me like developing riding areas and trails around the state is a benefit for everyone, especially families. You lose a plate but you gain miles and miles of riding. (real riding)

[toodeep]

So why do we need to loose our licensing abilities just to add a trail system? If your going to ride the trail system buy your sticker for that and if your using your atv around town on the streets buy the license plate. If your doing both you'll have to buy both, more $$ for the state. It's 2 different places/type of riding and they should be treated that way.

[bottlerocket]

So why do we need to loose our licensing abilities just to add a trail system? If your going to ride the trail system buy your sticker for that and if your using your atv around town on the streets buy the license plate. If your doing both you'll have to buy both, more $$ for the state. It's 2 different places/type of riding and they should be treated that way.



I agree with Toodeep on this.  This would be a good thing to bring in more money.

[Grumpy 1]

Racingvillagekid, Here is my stand on this bill.  There are two places I object.  One is to put enviromentalist on a committee to speed ATV permit money.  I do not object to a trail permit.  Number two is why close the whole state to all hard surface roads, why not allow local government entity's to close hard surface roads that part of the bill is backwards.  I do not object to a city closing a street or the state choosing to close a partcular part of a state highway or the county but to not allow normal businesss on hard surface roads all over the state is just plan nuts.  I hope that clears up my position.

[Thumper700]

Agreed, trails and roads should be 2 separate liscenses.  I'd pay for both.  But until someone comes up with a good reason why we should be off the roads, why should we give that up?  Now, if this does give us more riding areas, they may be seeing ATVs on the road less often, even if they are liscensed.  Oh, and Sica Hollow sounds great.  That's a really scenic area up here.