Mass,and Notheast

http://www.ijustwannarideinma.com/

Hey guys,at this time two hearing are set for the new ORV laws.
I understand that the wr250x/r is plated. However with the new changes in mass law you need a ORV sticker to ride off road.
Depending what RMV you call,your answer to that will change from your covered to add a second reg.
They are asking for kids,under 10 is banned in ma. and everyones support.
Now that fines start at 250$,and second offences can result in seizure. You may want to take the time for this.
Thanks,Fred

that sucks big time. So, are they saying that even though I'm plated I still need an off road sticker?

Yes,they droped the sentenace that had the exemption.You can call all the RMV offices and get another answer.
http://www.nedirtbikes.com/ follow it closed here.

dtx wrote:

Yes,they droped the sentenace that had the exemption.You can call all the RMV offices and get another answer.
http://www.nedirtbikes.com/ follow it closed here.

I just emailed the Environmental Police. I'll post the reply as soon as I get it.

dtx wrote:

However with the new changes in mass law you need a ORV sticker to ride off road.
Depending what RMV you call,your answer to that will change from your covered to add a second reg.
They are asking for kids,under 10 is banned in ma. and everyones support.

Ahhh, MA - that bastion of individual freedom.

Banning little kids is not cool at all. Of course, if they never get to try riding offroad when they're kids, maybe they'll never bother to give it a shot when they're adults. Success!

Getting different answers from different jurisdictions is also not cool. Why not write a couple asking them what you require, and keep a copy of the answer you like best with you when riding offroad? If you have to have a chat later on with somebody with a badge, that will have a lot of input on whether you're legal or not. Official direction on departmental letterhead - can't do much better than that.

I don't necessarily have a problem with OHV stickers, depending on the intent and whatnot. Frankly, as a hunter and fisherman, I've been pissed for decades that in most places the only people who have to buy a license to enjoy outdoor recreation is hunters and fishermen, while the hikers, backpackers, mountain bikers, kayakers, etc (all of which I also do) get a free ride. In many/most jurisdictions, those backcountry fees go towards management and enhancement programs, as well as enforcement. So it always pissed me off that most got to enjoy the benefits of that funding, while hunters and fishermen were the only ones footing the bill.

If it is simply intended as another obstruction of politically incorrect uses of public resources, then obviously that is a different matter altogether.

Montana has annual fees for any form of recreation on state land, snowmobile use, OHV use, whitewater use, etc. Essentially, pretty much everybody in the back country is expected to have a license to show they're paying their part for their use - and the moose cops check for those licenses as well, and I think that's great. Had some hikers snarl at us for having our shotguns on Trust lands not too far from our home, hunting Sharpies. Apparently, they thought if they were hiking, we shouldn't be bird hunting. Half an hour later, came up on them with the moose cop writing them tickets for no permits. He asked to see our hunting licenses and we were on our way with a smile and a "good luck with the birds". We gave the hikers a little wave as we left. Awesome!

Oddly enough, in Montana, if you're on a dual sport, you're probably legal to ride without any OHV permit as long as you're on something resembling a road and your bike is plated. That works for me too.

Anyways, I'm in favour of plans intended to raise management and enhancement funding from ALL public land users - or none at all - instead of making just hunters and fishermen pay while everybody else skates.

"Anyways, I'm in favour of plans intended to raise management and enhancement funding from ALL public land users - or none at all - instead of making just hunters and fishermen pay while everybody else skates."

Absolutely correct. Is this not discrimination? However, i still feel a little uneasy having to pay extra to be on public land. Isn't this why we pay taxes already? It seems to me that a permit for taking a walk in the woods is a walk on a slippery slope down into a "papers please" police state. We have to draw a line somewhere. I'm not sure where that line should be. Maybe we're over that line already.

TBird1 wrote:

Absolutely correct. Is this not discrimination? However, i still feel a little uneasy having to pay extra to be on public land. Isn't this why we pay taxes already? It seems to me that a permit for taking a walk in the woods is a walk on a slippery slope down into a "papers please" police state. We have to draw a line somewhere. I'm not sure where that line should be. Maybe we're over that line already.

When some users have to pay for access/use and some do not, it certainly is unfair. In many jurisdictions, it is still just the hunters and fishermen who pay fees for their activities on public land, everybody else indulges in their favoured use for free.

Where public land is concerned, we either say "have at it" and let people do what they will, or we think of it in the perspective of the Tragedy of the Commons and realize that while that public land belongs to all in common, to avoid that we need to regulate, protect, manage, and enhance. Not even Locke proposed that public land included an unfettered right of the individual to use without cost or regulation. That is why we view public land and private land so very differently.

You either go to a model where all public land management is funded by taxing everyone for that, or a model where you pay to play, and if you live your life in the concrete jungle you don't pay, just as my taxes don't include those for public transit that city dwellers pay. Lots of places blend general taxation with individual fees for use on the basis that they're not simply just managing and protecting the entire resource, but providing facilities for users that otherwise wouldn't exist: trail maintenance, boat launches, campsites, etc.

I have concerns about individual freedoms and loss of individual freedoms in the name of "safety", and I do think we are already well over that line with various legislation. Having the border guys download your cellphone and laptop when you enter the country, for example. But those concerns don't extend to a moose cop asking me to show him my hunting license, or my fishing license, or my permit showing I have paid for use of those public lands enhanced by the collection of those permit fees. Law and regulation is pretty much meaningless without the tools to enforce that law. If the means to have you prove you have bought your hunting license or use permit does not exist, there isn't much point to having that requirement in the first place.

I've been checked a lot of times over the years by moose cops while fishing, hunting - and hiking on the School Trust lands just a few hundred yards from our house. I have yet to see one remotely turned into a fishing expedition; I haven't had one yet even bother to verify that I'm the guy named on the license by asking to see some picture ID confirming I'm the guy named on the paper license. I'm pretty comfortable with that - but I would prefer that my permit or license have my picture on it, just so that should the day ever come that a suspicious moose cop does wonder if I am that guy, he doesn't have to ask for anything other than that specific license or permit.

Here is my response from the Mass. Environmental Police...

Dear Alan,

Yes, your street registered bike will need to be registered with the state of Massachusetts with the Office of Law Enforcement. A change in the OHV law mandated by Chapter 202 fo the Acts of 2010 was made in October, 2010. Street registered motorcycles are no longer allowed to operate off a a public way without being registered (pursuant to MGL c.90B, s.22) as a recreation vehicle as defined in MGL c.90B, s.20.

Thank you,

Kathy Lubold
Program Coordinator I
Office of Law Enforcement
Boating & Recreational Vehicles
218 South Main Street
Fall River, MA 02721
Phone -508-679-8287
Fax - 508-679-0066

SO, it seems that I have to register the same vehicle TWICE. Is there any other state with this level of bullshit?

last Friday I saw a cop in Billerica riding a Yahama 400f (I think) .. seems like they should have better things to do besides stopping us kids from having fun

I dont mind registering my bike for offroad use (agree with Jager), but in MA is it worth it? even registered how many (good) places are there to ride? seems like NH might have better options, which you have to register as well (I am registered in NH)

One of the guys from NH wanted to get an off road sticker and was asked for proof of sales tax paid. If your a netra enduro guy this is something you will need.
With the changes now your truck/jeep needs off road stickers,thats gonna sting.

I'll register for off road use if I have to, but up here in Massachusetts, I mostly ride in areas not designated for off road use anyway so either way, I'm screwed!

Well either way if caught your walkin.
Sled guy learned this the hard way last winter,they now tow everything.You know how to get to Hodges ? My x has second set of wheels just for hodges and Oct.mtn.
With any luck this will go back to the way it was.I just feel bad for the number of guys/gals that dont understand this.
How about the race bikes,who tags a closed course bike anyways ?

dtx wrote:

.
How about the race bikes,who tags a closed course bike anyways ?

NO exceptions. Not even for machines on your OWN PROPERTY!