PDA

View Full Version : OHV rules/registration to be enforced


Caribou Sandstorm
08-06-2011, 11:15 PM
This is being talked about In the Colorado sub group in the FJC forum.

Thought I would pass along.

http://staythetrail.org/news/?p=643

http://www.fjcruiserforums.com/forums/colorado/133222-off-highway-vehicle-registration.html

But read this...

http://www.blm.gov/co/st/en/BLM_Programs/recreation/atvreg.html

sank
08-09-2011, 02:34 AM
I posted over in FJ land. I printed the BLM page and put it in my glove box.

powderpig
08-09-2011, 01:03 PM
Unless the State has some strong pull(which I doubt), why would the Feds let them manage the federal land. The state does not have any legal rights to enforce these rules on federal land. They have all the right to enforce these new taxes on us all on state land, but not federal land.

Uncle Ben
08-09-2011, 01:08 PM
Unless the State has some strong pull(which I doubt), why would the Feds let them manage the federal land. The state does not have any legal rights to enforce these rules on federal land. They have all the right to enforce these new taxes on us all on state land, but not federal land.

The enforcement is only for State Parks/Land Management....NOT USFS lands.

nakman
08-09-2011, 11:18 PM
The enforcement is only for State Parks/Land Management....NOT USFS lands.

Alright so for the pedagogical reasons, dumb this down for me here. if I regularly recreate in the Clear Creek and Boulder Ranger Districts, those are USFS so I don't need a sticker? And same goes for Uncompahgre National Forest, that's also in National Forest so no sticker? where do I need the sticker then?

Uncle Ben
08-09-2011, 11:26 PM
Alright so for the pedagogical reasons, dumb this down for me here. if I regularly recreate in the Clear Creek and Boulder Ranger Districts, those are USFS so I don't need a sticker? And same goes for Uncompahgre National Forest, that's also in National Forest so no sticker? where do I need the sticker then?

Here is a reposted link from Chris' post... yo maps are all here foo...

http://www.blm.gov/co/st/en/BLM_Programs/recreation/atvreg.html

nakman
08-10-2011, 09:46 AM
Here is a reposted link from Chris' post... yo maps are all here foo...

http://www.blm.gov/co/st/en/BLM_Programs/recreation/atvreg.html

I'm even more confused now. The BLM's map for SW Colorado is the whole corner of the state.. from 4 corners all the way up past Gunnison, including Ouray, etc.

I'm going to run Black Bear & Imogene.. OHV sticker or no sticker?

Uncle Ben
08-10-2011, 09:49 AM
I'm even more confused now. The BLM's map for SW Colorado is the whole corner of the state.. from 4 corners all the way up past Gunnison, including Ouray, etc.

I'm going to run Black Bear & Imogene.. OHV sticker or no sticker?

Everything I have read states that they are only issuing information citations at this point. I say go without and hopefully you and all of us can learn more! If you want to be on the safe side call the appropriate Ranger station. I'm going to snoop into this more and see if I can get us a "guest" speaker at our next meeting or who knows maybe the Rally.

Red_Chili
08-10-2011, 10:59 AM
Wow, I was always told plated vehicles were exempt... I think they were once upon a time. The money goes to a VERY good cause (as long as we can keep environmental extremists from raiding the fund as almost happened). But lessee...
XR650
KDX220
87 4Runner
97 4Runner (optional, DD)

That's a bit of coin I wasn't anticipating...

nakman
08-10-2011, 11:30 AM
Wow, I was always told plated vehicles were exempt... I think they were once upon a time. The money goes to a VERY good cause (as long as we can keep environmental extremists from raiding the fund as almost happened). But lessee...
XR650
KDX220
87 4Runner
97 4Runner (optional, DD)

That's a bit of coin I wasn't anticipating...

Well Bill at the risk of seeing this thread spiraling into a political quagmire, I tend to agree with the logic here.. and personally don't object to an extra "tax" if it means that money keeps the land and trails I'm being taxed to use open? But yeah, 2 Land Cruisers to start with, followed by what I hope to be a small fleet of motorcycles... it does add up. But again as long as that money doesn't go towards more gates & closures, and instead towards better management of existing, or best case, opening up of new areas or re-opening of wrongly closed areas, I say let's do it. Maybe I'm just overly optimistic?

:kevin: a guest speaker sounds like a stellar idea! I'm also interested in what our favorite Ranger has to say..

Uncle Ben
08-10-2011, 11:43 AM
Well Bill at the risk of seeing this thread spiraling into a political quagmire, I tend to agree with the logic here.. and personally don't object to an extra "tax" if it means that money keeps the land and trails I'm being taxed to use open? But yeah, 2 Land Cruisers to start with, followed by what I hope to be a small fleet of motorcycles... it does add up. But again as long as that money doesn't go towards more gates & closures, and instead towards better management of existing, or best case, opening up of new areas or re-opening of wrongly closed areas, I say let's do it. Maybe I'm just overly optimistic?

:kevin: a guest speaker sounds like a stellar idea! I'm also interested in what our favorite Ranger has to say..


I have never whined about the registration requirement for my ATV. I use trails that are managed by everyone's taxes so it's only fair that since my ATV doesn't pay it's dues via a license plate I should have to kick in an extra fee to off-set my expense to tax payers. Having to pay extra for my fully licensed motor vehicle is double paying in my opinion and I think that's BS. I would gladly donate extra as long as I knew it went to actual maintenance rather than a general fund. These are PUBLIC lands we are triple paying on to use and the real pisser is we have very little actual control over what we have over paid for! :rant: Again "We the People" are actually "We the Sheep!"

Red_Chili
08-10-2011, 11:45 AM
Actually, the OHV fund is used for grants and goes (or the bulk of it goes, not sure of the figures exactly) right back into trails.

Uncle Ben
08-10-2011, 11:46 AM
Actually, the OHV fund is used for grants and goes (or the bulk of it goes, not sure of the figures exactly) right back into trails.

:thumb:

nakman
08-10-2011, 12:13 PM
Well you have a dual purpose vehicle, so if you have to now pay a "dual fee" don't you think it's appropriate? One goes towards the highway you took to get to Rollinsville, the other goes towards FR531.. yes it's an extra donation but if it's contributing to the right cause, as Bill says, I'm ok with that. It is a double taxation though.

Uncle Ben
08-10-2011, 01:58 PM
Well you have a dual purpose vehicle, so if you have to now pay a "dual fee" don't you think it's appropriate? One goes towards the highway you took to get to Rollinsville, the other goes towards FR531.. yes it's an extra donation but if it's contributing to the right cause, as Bill says, I'm ok with that. It is a double taxation though.

I agree and, like I have stated, I'm all for it AS LONG AS the fees do not go into an easily pirated general fund.

Red_Chili
08-10-2011, 03:17 PM
I agree and, like I have stated, I'm all for it AS LONG AS the fees do not go into an easily pirated general fund.
+1
I see from the COHVCO update, however, that a court challenge may allow OHV funds to go to closures and revegetation. :(

corsair23
08-10-2011, 03:30 PM
I agree and, like I have stated, I'm all for it AS LONG AS the fees do not go into an easily pirated general fund.

x2 - but let's be realistic...politicians haven't met a fund yet that was set up for something that they haven't managed to rob to pay for something else :(

This seems like a double edged sword - Buy the sticker and donate money to a fund that could very well be used against us...Don't buy a sticker and stop going on those trails making them easier to close due to less traffic and no money to maintain them...

subzali
08-10-2011, 03:44 PM
Been talking about this with a friend of mine at work, and it looks like the argument is over the wording of "what is a trail?"

Most FS and BLM LEOs make distinctions that are reflected on the MVUM: A road is a numbered route that is open to all methods of travel. There are two types of trails: those less than 50" in width and motorcycle only trails. Most FS and BLM LEOs would only consider the OHV sticker applicable on the 50" and narrower and motorcycle only trails. That's cool with me, my KTM is licensed for highway use but I use the "trails" so I don't mind paying $25.25 for it. That's basically saying that my registration doesn't cover my OHV use fee, it just allows me to travel on highways. Ok, I have to pay a little more than I thought I did, but I'm not going to complain an aweful lot about it.

The State LEOs, however, are arguing that the numbered routes are subject to the OHV registration as well. So that means when I want to take my wife's Corolla up on Rampart Range Road or down Wellington Lake Road it would have to have an OHV sticker on it. I would also have to get one for my Land Cruiser and my Tundra. So that would be an additional $75.75 every year (well probably won't buy one for the Corolla, so $50.50) just to drive down a Forest Service Road. I disagree with that.

Uncle Ben
08-10-2011, 03:45 PM
x2 - but let's be realistic...politicians haven't met a fund yet that was set up for something that they haven't managed to rob to pay for something else :(

This seems like a double edged sword - Buy the sticker and donate money to a fund that could very well be used against us...Don't buy a sticker and stop going on those trails making them easier to close due to less traffic and no money to maintain them...

Jeff, your post made me think of a positive for us from the double negative. If the cash intake from the program was successful enough it would sway the politicians to keep trails open in a much greater way than we could ever do!

corsair23
08-10-2011, 04:02 PM
Jeff, your post made me think of a positive for us from the double negative. If the cash intake from the program was successful enough it would sway the politicians to keep trails open in a much greater way than we could ever do!

Possibly...Don't kill off the cash cow theory? That will work until the pressure from the other side becomes greater than the value of the money coming in...And, if the money can truly only be used for trail maintenance, repairs, etc. and not for anything else that a politician might come up with then killing the program won't matter much to them from a funds perspective. I'd like to believe that the money would go to good use, but I don't trust the majority of politicians anymore.

Uncle Ben
08-10-2011, 04:14 PM
Possibly...Don't kill off the cash cow theory? That will work until the pressure from the other side becomes greater than the value of the money coming in...And, if the money can truly only be used for trail maintenance, repairs, etc. and not for anything else that a politician might come up with then killing the program won't matter much to them from a funds perspective. I'd like to believe that the money would go to good use, but I don't trust the majority of politicians anymore.

x2!

nakman
08-10-2011, 08:02 PM
I'm glad to see a couple more guys jump in to this. I honestly don't know where to stand.. think of volunteering- it's fun when we do cool stuff like spread hay, greet folks, put up kiosks.. but when those tasks turn to closing off routes, I understandably get a little less interested. Especially if I can't grasp the logic in closing them. So now I'm going to dump funds into something I hope puts up info kiosks, builds restrooms, parking areas.. but when/if those funds end up putting up a gate to close what used to be one of my favorite spots, I'm going to be more than a little bummed.

I'll toss out Jones Pass as an example- most of the "fun stuff" off of that main road are now closed. for what? It's not private land, not someone's watershed, was hardly even used from what I could tell. So now all that traffic gets diverted to the main road, and new illegal routes get created.. run up there some time and tell me if it was better or worse before they closed the upper section- last spur to the right before the first big switchback. I guess I'm saying I don't completely trust my government's appropriation of my new OHV dollars.. imagine that.

wesintl
08-10-2011, 08:09 PM
imho.. toll roads.. they suck

ttubb
08-13-2011, 10:16 AM
Am I reading this wrong? This states :

"Colorado Laws
The use of OHVs on public lands is subject to Colorado law.

Licensed, street-legal 4WDs, and motorcycles

No additional registration is required." See this from BLM.....

http://www.blm.gov/co/st/en/fo/ufo/recreation/ohv-facts.html

I buy a sticker for my ATV, but not my licensed vehicles. T

nakman
08-13-2011, 06:30 PM
Am I reading this wrong? This states :

I buy a sticker for my ATV, but not my licensed vehicles. T

yes Terry the issue is there appears to be a big contradiction here. You can either believe this:


Colorado Parks and Wildlife has announced its permit requirements for OHVs and motor vehicles using designated OHV routes on public lands in the state of Colorado. Please read closely and carefully.
The statute:
33-14.5-112. Off-highway use permit
(b) On and after January 1, 1991, the owner of every vehicle required to be registered pursuant to article 3 of title 42, C.R.S., and the owner or operator of every motor vehicle and off-highway vehicle from another state or country, when such vehicle is being used for recreational travel upon designated off-highway vehicle routes, shall obtain and display on such vehicle an off-highway use permit.
This statute would require plated vehicles on designated OHV routes to have a permit. A vehicle registered pursuant to article 3 of title 42 would be a street legal, plated vehicle. OHV registrations and OHV permits both cost $25.25, but are not the same thing.
from http://staythetrail.org/news/?p=643


Or believe this:


Colorado Laws

The use of OHVs on public lands is subject to Colorado law.
Licensed, street-legal 4WDs, and motorcycles


No additional registration is required.


from http://www.blm.gov/co/st/en/fo/ufo/recreation/ohv-facts.html

ttubb
08-13-2011, 06:38 PM
I guess the issue is "designated OHV routes"......

I printed a copy of the link listed above and will carry it with my in all my vehicles....Maybe this will help. T

Caribou Sandstorm
08-14-2011, 09:01 AM
I'm even more confused now. The BLM's map for SW Colorado is the whole corner of the state.. from 4 corners all the way up past Gunnison, including Ouray, etc.

I'm going to run Black Bear & Imogene.. OHV sticker or no sticker?

I was just up there end of June, the rangers were super nice, admitted their focus and jurisdiction was mostly for ohv vehicles like quads.

Anyway, they gave me a stack of new Alpine loop maps, which detail some additional trails, I was not aware of. If anyone wants one before you head up the next, let me know.

Old40Dog
08-14-2011, 09:33 AM
I was just up there end of June, the rangers were super nice, admitted their focus and jurisdiction was mostly for ohv vehicles like quads.

Anyway, they gave me a stack of new Alpine loop maps, which detail some additional trails, I was not aware of. If anyone wants one before you head up the next, let me know.

Chris,

I'd like to get at least one before the Ouray Run Labor Day weekend. Maybe at the Rally...Thanks!

60wag
08-19-2011, 12:43 PM
The issue was discussed at the Boulder Ranger District meeting yesterday. A rep from Stay the Trail was there. I still find it confusing but here is what I gathered from the discussion:
1. the issue is based on a 1991 Colorado law that unclear in it's definition of both OHVs and OHV routes.
2. It applies to all public land in Colorado - both state parks and federal land.
3. They are doing a year of public awareness before actually issuing citations. I don't know when the year starts.
4. the law, as written may be interpreted to include road legal plated full size vehicles and plated motorcycles. It may also include all routes shown on the MVUM - which is clearly nuts because there are numerous county roads shown on the maps.

My take on the whole issue is that it will take someone to fight an issued citation to force the state to clarify the language in the law.

Caribou Sandstorm
08-19-2011, 04:50 PM
Chris,

I'd like to get at least one before the Ouray Run Labor Day weekend. Maybe at the Rally...Thanks!

You got it Dave!

sank
08-20-2011, 11:17 AM
Hi Friends,

Man, I wish i was at the BRD meeting yesterday for the discussion!! Head over to the FJ forums to see my second posting detailing the issue from my legal perspective. I am not a lawyer, it is not legal advice.


I contacted Mr. Metsa at Colorado State Parks and he confirmed that the educational program is only happening, and I quote, "on 'trails', and not 'roads' as shown on a FS MVUM. Colorado does have a few routes that are 'trails open to all vehicles' which full-size vehicles are allowed on. Not all FS units have any." He cautioned that FS or BLM officers may not take the same position as State Parks. The BLM won't cite you, as their website is clear on the issue, and I personally believe NFS employees will be cautious and not aggressive on this, as it is a state law, not a federal one. If an NFS officer cited me incorrectly, we would definitely have to finish the discussion in front of a judge, in which I could bring up the federal definition of a "Forest Highway".

So I poked around some MVUMs (easy access at: Stay The Trail Colorado - Where To Go - Forest Service Motor Vehicle Use Maps) by quickly looking at the map legends. Clear Creek FS district MVUM shows no trails at all, only roads. Forest ranger districts: Pike's Peak, Canyon Lakes, Sulfur North and South, South Park, and South Platte East and West all have trails only open to < 50" vehicles, so they don't apply to cars, trucks, and jeeps that don't fit. The only place in the entire front range where there is a trail that fits a full size vehicle is the Jenny Creek Trail, in the Boulder Ranger District. Even Lefthand OHV park has no trails for full-size vehicles; the trails in Lefthand are for motorcycles. Everything else in BRD is a road.

So in my opinion, you should get an OHV sticker on your plated highway rig to show your support for the Jenny Creek Trail, but you should know it's the only place it will be required to be legal in the front range. I did not check the western slope for other possible exceptions but there are a few.

Of course, if you have a dual-sport moto, you'll need the sticker to ride the trails open to width < 50" vehicles.

sank
08-20-2011, 11:27 AM
From my post in the FJ forums, before I talked to Mr. Metsa. Since it reads the law, it's still valid. And Mr Metsa was able to confirm and clarify (which I posted above).

-----------------

...Colorado doesn't require license-plated street legal vehicles to have this OHV permit! MY POINT is that this is a misinterpretation of the law. I have nothing against putting money towards trail maintenance and educational programs.

So let's look at the Colorado Revised Statues only. That is a good idea. We should really exclude FS and BLM and NPS lands, but only because Tom Metsa is a Colorado State Parks official and this whole rucass originated from his office (and also because I think the other agencies disagree with him). But since he said he is working with the larger fed agencies to find a consistent interpretation of these statues, and that your point is well taken and CO law applies to fed land in the state (in most cases) this discussion applies to all land in the state, not just state land. I think we agree on that.

As a foundation, recall that this is about an "off-highway use permit". A route cannot be a highway and a non-highway at the same time. So logically, one would assume you must be off the highway to need it. I admit, at this point, it's only an assumption.

Therefore, let's look at some Colorado law, starting at the same place Mr Metsa's office started, and going through the referenced statues and all relevant definitions:


33-14.5-112. Off-highway use permit

(b) On and after January 1, 1991, the owner of every vehicle required to be registered pursuant to article 3 of title 42, C.R.S., and the owner or operator of every motor vehicle and off-highway vehicle from another state or country, when such vehicle is being used for recreational travel upon designated off-highway vehicle routes, shall obtain and display on such vehicle an off-highway use permit.

Let's think about this. :confused:

Firstly we need to check if your vehicle needs to be registered pursuant to article 3 of title 42, CRS, or if the vehicle is from out of state. For most of us, we're not from out of state (or we wouldn't be in the CO forum). SO all we have to check is if we need registration.

Article 3 of title 42, C.R.S. (42-3-103) says, "vehicle that is primarily designed to be operated or drawn upon any highway of this state". Ok, so that includes your FJ. and all the jeeps, trucks, subarus, etc. Therefore, it is registered, and you have a license plate. Although outside the scope of this FJ discussion, a dual-sport motorcycle belongs in this as well, as it is primarily designed for highway use. More on that later.


33-14.5-101. Definitions
(3) "Off-highway vehicle" means any self-propelled vehicle which is designed to travel on wheels or tracks in contact with the ground, which is designed primarily for use off of the public highways, and which is generally and commonly used to transport persons for recreational purposes. "Off-highway vehicle" does not include the following:
(g) Vehicles registered pursuant to article 3 of title 42, C.R.S.


Ok, so we're not an off-highway vehicle, because we're an on-highway vehicle. The CRS clearly states here that a vehicle can't be both an on-highway vehicle AND an off-highway vehicle.

So far so good, we all agree on what needs a license plate and what doesn't.

Secondly, we need to check if "such vehicle is being used for recreational travel upon designated off-highway vehicle routes". Recreational travel is what we do, so we just need to know if it's an off-highway route. The answer is NO ! I mentioned previously the definition of a highway. Therefore it does not apply. But, I have not proven this yet using Colorado law.

Luckily, CRS defines this route for us, which seems to be the main point of contention between me and some of you. The CRS is clear in that if the route is not designated as an "off-highway vehicle route," then we dont' need the OHV sticker.


33-14.5-101. Definitions
(4) "Off-highway vehicle route" means any road, trail, or way owned or managed by the state or any agency or political subdivision thereof or the United States for off-highway vehicle travel.


It's easy to get confused here because we have this idea in our heads about what a highway is. CRS clearly states that an on-highway vehicle can't be an off-highway vehicle at the same time. Likewise, an on-highway route can't be an off-higway route at the same time. These are the only two options.

This CRS states that a route managed by the state for off-highway vehicle travel is an off-highway vehicle route. So, if a route is managed for on-highway vehicle travel, then this whole thing does not apply.

PUNCHLINE:
If the route is designed for you and I and the state to drive our (plated) on-highway vehicles on it, then it's obviously managed for highway vehicle travel.

I hear you asking if an off-highway vehicle is operated on a route, then it must be an off-highway route? Not true. There are many exemptions that allow off-highway vehicles to be operated on highways.

33-14.5-108. Off-highway vehicle operations
(1) No off-highway vehicle may be operated on the public streets, roads, or highways of this state except in the following cases:
(a) When a street, road, or highway is designated open by the state or any agency or political subdivision thereof;

There are many many many routes that the FS (a government agency with authority to do so) has managed for (plated) on-highway vehicle travel but are also designated to allow off-highway vehicle travel. The easiest example is the brown route signs in the woods tell you the allowed travel methods. So, just because an ATV is legal on the route, does not make it an off-highway route. But on the contrary, we have already shown that if the route is managed for on-highway (plated) vehicle use, then it is not an off-highway route.

Also, in the interest of being sure of the correct answer, please let me know if you can find where Colorado specifically defines a highway, and that it is contrary to the USC definition that I gave before. http://www.michie.com/colorado

So what I'm saying, based soley on Colorado law, is that if you can drive your (plated) highway vehicle on the route, then it's managed for highway vehicle travel. If it's managed for highway vehicle travel, then it's not an off-highway route. If it's not an off-highway route, then you don't need the off-highway sticker.

Motorcycles:
The only part that really needs an interpretation is the gray area: dual-sport motorcycle. By my strict reading of the law, it is easily argued that anywhere a dual-sport motorcycle (a highway vehicle) can go, an OHV sticker is not required. This is my position (and that of the BLM page I printed and put in my rig). But I think Mr Metsa's office could easily argue that such trails that are motorcycle/atv/snowmobile - only - accessible are managed for off-highway vehicle travel, and then you'd find the only case in which a vehicle needs both a license plate and a sticker. What comes to mind for me is the < 50" trails, there are obvious signs, posts and cables in place to limit access only to vehicles that are specifically designed for off-highway use.

-----------

This is what I wrote a week ago. Mr. Metsa confirmed my position and pointed out the exception based on MVUMs.

Again, for clarification, after talking with Mr. Metsa, it appears the only route in the front range that is a trail and allows full-size rigs is Jenny Creek Trail. Everything else does not require a OHV sticker.

sank
08-20-2011, 11:32 AM
Maybe whomever of you has a good relationship with BRD and STT can print this page and have a friendly discussion over lunch? I work in Boulder and would be willing to attend, with my CRS book in-hand.

Cheers,

subzali
09-15-2011, 01:16 PM
I have my response from the CCRD posted over here:
http://risingsun4x4club.org/forum2/showthread.php?t=16489

A question about your above post sank; just because an on-highway vehicle may travel on a route, doesn't mean that that route is maintained for on-highway vehicles (in my opinion). That's why the motorcycle is a gray area. You addressed this at the end of your post above. I think it would be more common for on-highway vehicles to travel on off-highway routes (e.g. a plated motorcycle) than for off-highway vehicles to travel on on-highway routes. In fact, I cannot think of any cases where that is allowed.

Red_Chili
09-15-2011, 06:03 PM
ATVs are allowed on road in some municipalities. That is the only exception I can think of.

sank
09-16-2011, 06:10 PM
That's why the motorcycle is a gray area. You addressed this at the end of your post above. I think it would be more common for on-highway vehicles to travel on off-highway routes (e.g. a plated motorcycle) than for off-highway vehicles to travel on on-highway routes. In fact, I cannot think of any cases where that is allowed.

I agree that a dual-sport bike on a trail is probably the most common case.
I can also think of some places where the opposite is true. The area below Iron Clads and maybe also Bunce School road, I believe off-highway vehicles are allowed. By my interpretation of the US CODE below, those roads are technically "forest highways". Another place, up near Kingston Peak, off-highway vehicles are allowed on the "forest highway". There are plenty of places like this, I suspect.


TITLE 23--HIGHWAYS (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/usc.cgi?ACTION=RETRIEVE&FILE=$$xa$$busc23.wais&start=23656&SIZE=182579&TYPE=TEXT)
(9) Forest highway.--The term ``forest highway'' means a forest
road under the jurisdiction of, and maintained by, a public
authority and open to public travel.


Cheers,

nakman
05-31-2012, 02:31 PM
bumpity. Can someone confirm this is the correct registration form? http://www.parks.state.co.us/OHVsandSnowmobiles/OHVProgram/OHVRegistrations/Pages/OHVRegistrations.aspx

nuclearlemon
05-31-2012, 02:44 PM
[QUOTE=subzali;191834 I think it would be more common for on-highway vehicles to travel on off-highway routes (e.g. a plated motorcycle) than for off-highway vehicles to travel on on-highway routes. In fact, I cannot think of any cases where that is allowed.[/QUOTE]

Small Towns sometimes allow quads and side by sides on town.roads

subzali
05-31-2012, 03:13 PM
bumpity. Can someone confirm this is the correct registration form? http://www.parks.state.co.us/OHVsandSnowmobiles/OHVProgram/OHVRegistrations/Pages/OHVRegistrations.aspx

Looks like the form that I filled out. I did mine at Vickery Motorsports and I'm 45 days into my 60 day temporary permit and haven't received my sticker yet. My dad went into the State Parks office and got a sticker the same day.

rover67
05-31-2012, 03:26 PM
that's where I got mine and it took a little while for me to get mine.

Uncle Ben
05-31-2012, 06:26 PM
Just register on-line ....they will mail it to you pretty quick!

Bighead
06-06-2012, 02:28 PM
Just register on-line ....they will mail it to you pretty quick!

I thought that was only for renewals.

rover67
06-06-2012, 02:47 PM
I thought that was only for renewals.

I registered my bike online as new and it was easy. Just took a few weeks to get my sticker in the mail.