replying...

[Gene Lane]

GOVERNMENT BANS OFF-ROAD MOTORCYCLES By Mick Skolnick, Big Bear Trail Riders That alarming headline, which will probably be relegated to the back pages of the sports section, is not very far away. Our worst nightmare is fast becoming a reality. The EPA's new emissions proposal would not only eliminate two-strokes, it would also affect most of the off-road motorcycles we are so fond of converting for dual-sport use. Any off-road bike which currently does not qualify for a green sticker under California's CARB regulations, as well as some that do, would not be allowed on public land across the entire nation, and would be ineligible for a street license in any state! While you are reading this, the California DMV is closing the VIN check-digit loophole that allowed some non-compliant bikes to obtain a green sticker. They are also in the process of recalling license plates that had been issued in error to bikes that cannot meet the CARB requirements. They now say that they will not issue street registrations to any red-sticker bikes, even if they are presently licensed in another state. Some of the four-stroke trail bikes that last year met the emission standards for a green sticker are now getting red stickers from the DMV. Thanks to Governor Davis, the California Department of Parks and Recreation's Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Division has been taken over by environmentalists. Their apparent intention is to drastically limit the use of motorcycles and ATVs on state and federal lands. As the state's regulatory noose tightens, more and more off-road bikes will be getting red stickers instead of green. In many places, such as the San Bernardino National Forest, the funds obtained from OHV registrations are no longer being used for building and maintaining OHV trails. The OHMVR Commission has been giving out grants that allow those funds to be used for habitat restoration and law enforcement, instead of supporting recreation! What we are being threatened with here is not an access issue or land-use issue. This assault on off-road motorcycles is actually a vehicle use issue! While AFFA, CORVA, the BlueRibbonCoalition and the AMA have been putting up a fight against the land closures promoted by the environmental lobby, the eco-nazis have devised a completely different strategy. They are trying to eliminate the sale and use of off-road vehicles by pushing for stricter noise and emission regulations, which would effectively prohibit dirt bikes and ATVs from public lands. If we don't do something about this new attack immediately, dual-sport motorcycling as we know it will be doomed. If you're not happy about what the California Air Resources Board and the California OHMVR Commission have done to the Green Sticker Program, please get in touch with CORVA and BlueRibbonCoalition, join, and ask what they are doing about it and what you can do to help: http://www.corva.org/CORVA_main.htm I hope you're convinced that dual-sporters everywhere, not just in California, will be severely impacted by the EPA's proposed emission regulations. For some strange reason, the AMA has chosen to frame this off-road vehicle use issue as a two-stroke problem, and they need to hear from the dual-sport and trail-riding community that our form of recreation is also in danger. More information about the EPA proposal can be found on the AMA's web site: http://www.AMADirectlink.com/magazine/2001/story3dec.htm There is a "Rapid Response" link that will enable you to send your comments to the EPA. Here's one example of a comment (please don't copy -- be somewhat original): Re Proposed EPA OHV Emission Regulations I am very concerned about the Environmental Protection Agency's proposal for national emissions standards that would affect off-highway recreational vehicles, particularly motorcycles and ATVs. The proposed standards would effectively end the use of off-road vehicles on public land. The federal government needs to balance our legitimate recreational concerns against those of obviously misguided environmentalists. I am a firm believer in the public's right to engage in responsible OHV recreation on our public lands. Imposing draconian restrictions on OHV recreation, such as emission regulations which would effectively eliminate most OHVs, would result in massive civil disobedience and create a law-enforcement nightmare for all levels of government. It is unrealistic to expect that air quality can be significantly improved by applying such strict emission standards to vehicles which see very limited use, and only in a recreational capacity at that. Consequently, there needs to be a separate and realistic set of performance-based standards which are applied to off-highway vehicles, especially motorcycles and ATVs. The EPA must also consider safety and cost factors when creating new emission standards, and the manufacturers of off-highway vehicles should be given every opportunity to meet a realistic set of standards. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Frank Sosa]

I'd like to put my two cents on this debate. While, I agree that what the state may try to do with the off-road vehicles is disturbing, I have issues with the way that this debate is constantly framed by the people trying to protect motorcycle rights. Every time I hear environmentalists referred to as eco-nazis or treehuggers I cringe. I don't think anything positive can come out of reacting so bitterly to people who may not be fully informed about the issues at hand. I have been riding motorcycles since I was about 8 years old. I grew up in the Santa Cruz mountains, a haven for ex hippies. My Dad raised me to have respect for nature and to appreciate every the beauty of our surroundings. He bought me my first ATC and my first motorcycle. When I ride off-road I ride with a conscience. Some of us do have respect for the environment and we love off-roading. The bottom line is that in this battle the reactionaries on both sides need to know the whole truth about motorcycles and motorcyclists. I personally feel that by riding a motorcycle that gets 55 mpg I'm doing something positive for the environment. The bottom line is that bikes emit far less toxic fumes than cars. However, we need to build alliances with the environmentalists. We need to teach them that off-road motorcycles driven responsibly are not responsible for the problems our environment faces. We need them to know that we are not a bunch of slobs trashing our forests but that we do care for our forests and wild places just as much as they do. I know that's the way I feel. Am I alone here?

> > Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 18:26:43 -0700 > From: "Gene Lane" >Subject: GOVERNMENT BANS OFF-ROAD MOTORCYCLES > >GOVERNMENT BANS OFF-ROAD MOTORCYCLES > > > >By Mick Skolnick, Big Bear Trail Riders > > > > That alarming headline, which will probably be relegated to the >back pages of > >the sports section, is not very far away. Our worst nightmare is fast becoming > >a reality. The EPA's new emissions proposal would not only eliminate > >two-strokes, it would also affect most of the off-road motorcycles we are so > >fond of converting for dual-sport use. Any off-road bike which currently does > >not qualify for a green sticker under California's CARB regulations, >as well as > >some that do, would not be allowed on public land across the entire >nation, and > >would be ineligible for a street license in any state! > > While you are reading this, the California DMV is closing the >VIN check-digit > >loophole that allowed some non-compliant bikes to obtain a green sticker. They > >are also in the process of recalling license plates that had been issued in > >error to bikes that cannot meet the CARB requirements. They now say that they > >will not issue street registrations to any red-sticker bikes, even if they are > >presently licensed in another state. Some of the four-stroke trail bikes that > >last year met the emission standards for a green sticker are now getting red > >stickers from the DMV. > > Thanks to Governor Davis, the California Department of Parks and >Recreation's > >Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Division has been taken over by > >environmentalists. Their apparent intention is to drastically limit the use of > >motorcycles and ATVs on state and federal lands. As the state's regulatory > >noose tightens, more and more off-road bikes will be getting red stickers > >instead of green. In many places, such as the San Bernardino National Forest, > >the funds obtained from OHV registrations are no longer being used >for building > >and maintaining OHV trails. The OHMVR Commission has been giving out grants > >that allow those funds to be used for habitat restoration and law enforcement, > >instead of supporting recreation! > > What we are being threatened with here is not an access issue or >land-use issue. This assault on off-road motorcycles is actually a >vehicle use issue! While > >AFFA, CORVA, the BlueRibbonCoalition and the AMA have been putting >up a fight against the land closures promoted by the environmental >lobby, the eco-nazis have devised a completely different strategy. >They are trying to eliminate the sale and use of > >off-road vehicles by pushing for stricter noise and emission >regulations, which > >would effectively prohibit dirt bikes and ATVs from public lands. If we don't > >do something about this new attack immediately, dual-sport motorcycling as we > >know it will be doomed. > > If you're not happy about what the California Air Resources Board and the > >California OHMVR Commission have done to the Green Sticker Program, >please get in touch with CORVA and BlueRibbonCoalition, join, and >ask what they are doing about it and what you can do to help: > >http://www.corva.org/CORVA_main.htm > > I hope you're convinced that dual-sporters everywhere, not just >in California, > >will be severely impacted by the EPA's proposed emission >regulations. For some strange reason, the AMA has chosen to frame >this off-road vehicle use issue as a two-stroke problem, and they >need to hear from the dual-sport and trail-riding community that our >form of recreation is also in danger. More information about the EPA >proposal can be found on the AMA's web site: > >http://www.AMADirectlink.com/magazine/2001/story3dec.htm > >There is a "Rapid Response" link that will enable you to send your comments to > >the EPA. Here's one example of a comment (please don't copy -- be >somewhat original): Re Proposed EPA OHV Emission Regulations > >I am very concerned about the Environmental Protection Agency's proposal for > >national emissions standards that would affect off-highway recreational > >vehicles, particularly motorcycles and ATVs. The proposed standards would > >effectively end the use of off-road vehicles on public land. > >The federal government needs to balance our legitimate recreational concerns > >against those of obviously misguided environmentalists. I am a firm >believer in > >the public's right to engage in responsible OHV recreation on our >public lands. > >Imposing draconian restrictions on OHV recreation, such as emission >regulations which would effectively eliminate most OHVs, would >result in massive civil disobedience and create a law-enforcement >nightmare for all levels of government. > > It is unrealistic to expect that air quality can be >significantly improved by > >applying such strict emission standards to vehicles which see very >limited use, > >and only in a recreational capacity at that. Consequently, there needs to be a > >separate and realistic set of performance-based standards which are applied to > >off-highway vehicles, especially motorcycles and ATVs. The EPA must also > >consider safety and cost factors when creating new emission standards, and the > >manufacturers of off-highway vehicles should be given every >opportunity to meet > >a realistic set of standards. > > >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >

--

[david gay]

It comes down to an us or them mentality. When you feel like your always under attack, it becomes hard to see the others point of view. The Eco-nazis have managed to shut down a lot a riding areas, and I just don't believe in their cause. "Dirtbikes hurt the desert" Bullsh*t!!! Wind and rain will continue to erase our exsistance long after we are gone. Trees will continue to grow, and rocks are fuc*ing rocks. I don't how many wildlife species motorcyclist have wiped out, but I've hit one rabbit and one snake in thirty years of riding, neither was while riding off rode. I love nature too, but every single piece does not have to be left as has been for millions of years. Its like Drew Carry once said as he pretended to empty a can of hairspray, "screw the grandkids, I'm cold now". Dave (I again blame the above ramblings on severe lead posioning) Frank Sosa wrote: I'd like to put my two cents on this debate. While, I agree that what the state may try to do with the off-road vehicles is disturbing, I have issues with the way that this debate is constantly framed by the people trying to protect motorcycle rights. Every time I hear environmentalists referred to as eco-nazis or treehuggers I cringe. I don't think anything positive can come out of reacting so bitterly to people who may not be fully informed about the issues at hand. I have been riding motorcycles since I was about 8 years old. I grew up in the Santa Cruz mountains, a haven for ex hippies. My Dad raised me to have respect for nature and to appreciate every the beauty of our surroundings. He bought me my first ATC and my first motorcycle. When I ride off-road I ride with a conscience. Some of us do have respect for the environment and we love off-roading. The bottom line is that in this battle the reactionaries on both sides need to know the whole truth about motorcycles and motorcyclists. I personally feel that by riding a motorcycle that gets 55 mpg I'm doing something positive for the environment. The bottom line is that bikes emit far less toxic fumes than cars. However, we need to build alliances with the environmentalists. We need to teach them that off-road motorcycles driven responsibly are not responsible for the problems our environment faces. We need them to know that we are not a bunch of slobs trashing our forests but that we do care for our forests and wild places just as much as they do. I know that's the way I feel. Am I alone here?

> > Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 18:26:43 -0700 > From: "Gene Lane" >Subject: GOVERNMENT BANS OFF-ROAD MOTORCYCLES > >GOVERNMENT BANS OFF-ROAD MOTORCYCLES > > > >By Mick Skolnick, Big Bear Trail Riders > > > > That alarming headline, which will probably be relegated to the >back pages of > >the sports section, is not very far away. Our worst nightmare is fast becoming > >a reality. The EPA's new emissions proposal would not only eliminate > >two-strokes, it would also affect most of the off-road motorcycles we are so > >fond of converting for dual-sport use. Any off-road bike which currently does > >not qualify for a green sticker under California's CARB regulations, >as well as > >some that do, would not be allowed on public land across the entire >nation, and > >would be ineligible for a street license in any state! > > While you are reading this, the California DMV is closing the >VIN check-digit > >loophole that allowed some non-compliant bikes to obtain a green sticker. They > >are also in the process of recalling license plates that had been issued in > >error to bikes that cannot meet the CARB requirements. They now say that they > >will not issue street registrations to any red-sticker bikes, even if they are > >presently licensed in another state. Some of the four-stroke trail bikes that > >last year met the emission standards for a green sticker are now getting red > >stickers from the DMV. > > Thanks to Governor Davis, the California Department of Parks and >Recreation's > >Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Division has been taken over by > >environmentalists. Their apparent intention is to drastically limit the use of > >motorcycles and ATVs on state and federal lands. As the state's regulatory > >noose tightens, more and more off-road bikes will be getting red stickers > >instead of green. In many places, such as the San Bernardino National Forest, > >the funds obtained from OHV registrations are no longer being used >for building > >and maintaining OHV trails. The OHMVR Commission has been giving out grants > >that allow those funds to be used for habitat restoration and law enforcement, > >instead of supporting recreation! > > What we are being threatened with here is not an access issue or >land-use issue. This assault on off-road motorcycles is actually a >vehicle use issue! While > >AFFA, CORVA, the BlueRibbonCoalition and the AMA have been putting >up a fight against the land closures promoted by the environmental >lobby, the eco-nazis have devised a completely different strategy. >They are trying to eliminate the sale and use of > >off-road vehicles by pushing for stricter noise and emission >regulations, which > >would effectively prohibit dirt bikes and ATVs from public lands. If we don't > >do something about this new attack immediately, dual-sport motorcycling as we > >know it will be doomed. > > If you're not happy about what the California Air Resources Board and the > >California OHMVR Commission have done to the Green Sticker Program, >please get in touch with CORVA and BlueRibbonCoalition, join, and >ask what they are doing about it and what you can do to help: > >http://www.corva.org/CORVA_main.htm > > I hope you're convinced that dual-sporters everywhere, not just >in California, > >will be severely impacted by the EPA's proposed emission >regulations. For some strange reason, the AMA has chosen to frame >this off-road vehicle use issue as a two-stroke problem, and they >need to hear from the dual-sport and trail-riding community that our >form of recreation is also in danger. More information about the EPA >proposal can be found on the AMA's web site: > >http://www.AMADirectlink.com/magazine/2001/story3dec.htm > >There is a "Rapid Response" link that will enable you to send your comments to > >the EPA. Here's one example of a comment (please don't copy -- be >somewhat original): Re Proposed EPA OHV Emission Regulations > >I am very concerned about the Environmental Protection Agency's proposal for > >national emissions standards that would affect off-highway recreational > >vehicles, particularly motorcycles and ATVs. The proposed standards would > >effectively end the use of off-road vehicles on public land. > >The federal government needs to balance our legitimate recreational concerns > >against those of obviously misguided environmentalists. I am a firm >believer in > >the public's right to engage in responsible OHV recreation on our >public lands. > >Imposing draconian restrictions on OHV recreation, such as emission >regulations which would effectively eliminate most OHVs, would >result in massive civil disobedience and create a law-enforcement >nightmare for all levels of government. > > It is unrealistic to expect that air quality can be >significantly improved by > >applying such strict emission standards to vehicles which see very >limited use, > >and only in a recreational capacity at that. Consequently, there needs to be a > >separate and realistic set of performance-based standards which are applied to > >off-highway vehicles, especially motorcycles and ATVs. The EPA must also > >consider safety and cost factors when creating new emission standards, and the > >manufacturers of off-highway vehicles should be given every >opportunity to meet > >a realistic set of standards. > > >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >

-- List sponsored by Dual Sport News at www.dualsportnews.com. List FAQ courtesy of Chris Krok at: www.bigcee.com/klr650faq.html Unsubscribe by sending a blank message to: DSN_klr650-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com . Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos, & more faith.yahoo.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Judson D. Jones]

--- In DSN_klr650@y..., Frank Sosa wrote:

> > I'd like to put my two cents on this debate. While, I agree that > what the state may try to do with the off-road vehicles is > disturbing, I have issues with the way that this debate is

constantly

> framed by the people trying to protect motorcycle rights. Every

time

> I hear environmentalists referred to as eco-nazis or

treehuggers I

> cringe. I don't think anything positive can come out of reacting

so

> bitterly to people who may not be fully informed about the

issues at

> hand. I have been riding motorcycles since I was about 8

years old.

> I grew up in the Santa Cruz mountains, a haven for ex hippies.

My

> Dad raised me to have respect for nature and to appreciate

every the

> beauty of our surroundings. He bought me my first ATC and

my first

> motorcycle. When I ride off-road I ride with a conscience.

Some of

> us do have respect for the environment and we love

off-roading. The

> bottom line is that in this battle the reactionaries on both sides > need to know the whole truth about motorcycles and

motorcyclists. I

> personally feel that by riding a motorcycle that gets 55 mpg I'm > doing something positive for the environment. The bottom line

is

> that bikes emit far less toxic fumes than cars. However, we

need to

> build alliances with the environmentalists. We need to teach

them

> that off-road motorcycles driven responsibly are not

responsible for

> the problems our environment faces. We need them to know

that we are

> not a bunch of slobs trashing our forests but that we do care

for our

> forests and wild places just as much as they do. I know that's

the

> way I feel. Am I alone here? >

No.

[Judson D. Jones]

--- In DSN_klr650@y..., david gay wrote:

> > It comes down to an us or them mentality. When you feel like

your always under attack, it becomes hard to see the others point of view. The Eco-nazis have managed to shut down a lot a riding areas, and I just don't believe in their cause. "Dirtbikes hurt the desert" Bullsh*t!!! Wind and rain will continue to erase our exsistance long after we are gone. Trees will continue to grow, and rocks are fuc*ing rocks. I don't how many wildlife species motorcyclist have wiped out, but I've hit one rabbit and one snake in thirty years of riding, neither was while riding off rode.

> I love nature too, but every single piece does not have to be left

as has been for millions of years. Its like Drew Carry once said as he pretended to empty a can of hairspray, "screw the grandkids, I'm cold now". Dave

>

In general, I agree that the environmental movement is correct in trying to preserve genuine wilderness, and for example to prevent drilling in ANWR. I don't feel I have the need or right to ride my motorcycle on every inch of this planet. On the other hand, I don't see much point in trying to turn back the clock on areas that have a history of multi-use. I've been in plenty of places that have been open to bikes for years, and seem to be doing just fine. I regret to have missed out on a few riding opportunities due to trail closures; but when I see the mess made by churning 4-wheelers, I understand the reason for the closures. I know of a couple of areas that could have been saved simply by limiting them to vehicles less than 36" wide. There ought to be places for the big 4-wheelers to go and do their thing, and indeed there is some good riding to be found on jeep trails, but I don't appreciate it when riding area is lost unnecessarily because somebody behaves irresponsibly.

[dooden]

Umm your all alone.... Just kidding.. I agree, and respect the woods and areas I ride in, but also know that nature by far does more by errosion than bikes / 4 wheelers can do. There are the few that tear up land that they have no business being on also. But growing up in a logging rich area, have seen bulldozers plow into wooded areas and back fill swamps with enuff rock to sink a battleship, to allow access by the semi trucks to get the logs out, and know these roads cause no damage to nature or the woods, in fact proper land management helps the forest grow better. The tread is to cut everything down nowdays, and allow it to regrow by itself or seed it with whatever the land owner wants to grow there. So there are extremists on both side of the coin. Bumper sticker I see alot up here is: "If you think logging is bad, try using plastic toilet paper ! " Dooden This message contains 100% recycled electrons....

--- In DSN_klr650@y..., Frank Sosa wrote: > > I'd like to put my two cents on this debate. While, I agree that > what the state may try to do with the off-road vehicles is > disturbing, I have issues with the way that this debate is constantly > framed by the people trying to protect motorcycle rights. Every time > I hear environmentalists referred to as eco-nazis or treehuggers I > cringe. I don't think anything positive can come out of reacting so > bitterly to people who may not be fully informed about the issues at > hand. I have been riding motorcycles since I was about 8 years old. > I grew up in the Santa Cruz mountains, a haven for ex hippies. My > Dad raised me to have respect for nature and to appreciate every the > beauty of our surroundings. He bought me my first ATC and my first > motorcycle. When I ride off-road I ride with a conscience. Some of > us do have respect for the environment and we love off-roading. The > bottom line is that in this battle the reactionaries on both sides > need to know the whole truth about motorcycles and motorcyclists. I > personally feel that by riding a motorcycle that gets 55 mpg I'm > doing something positive for the environment. The bottom line is > that bikes emit far less toxic fumes than cars. However, we need to > build alliances with the environmentalists. We need to teach them > that off-road motorcycles driven responsibly are not responsible for > the problems our environment faces. We need them to know that we are > not a bunch of slobs trashing our forests but that we do care for our > forests and wild places just as much as they do. I know that's the > way I feel. Am I alone here? >

[dooden]

--- In DSN_klr650@y..., "Judson D. Jones" wrote: > > I regret to have missed out on a few riding opportunities due to > trail closures; but when I see the mess made by churning > 4-wheelers, I understand the reason for the closures. I know of a > couple of areas that could have been saved simply by limiting > them to vehicles less than 36" wide. There ought to be places for > the big 4-wheelers to go and do their thing, and indeed there is > some good riding to be found on jeep trails, but I don't > appreciate it when riding area is lost unnecessarily because > somebody behaves irresponsibly. Same sh!t, different day... Gotta make new laws, because the current ones were not enforced.. I am so tired of that crap it just aint funny. In this lovey dovey dont want to hurt little Johnny's feelings and tell him he lost the baseball game, so we dont keep score, we never spank our child we use positive reenforcement to help him make up his own mind and do whats right.. blah blah blah blah... If Johnny is a looser, then Johnny is a looser.. Period... That is life, work harder and do better next time. John Walker (??) (the Taliban fighter), was raised like that, parents were the lovey dovey let Johnny do as Johnny needs type... B.S... that kid grew up looking for anybody that would give him guidance.. and he got it alright.... Sorry but if Johnny does something wrong Johnny needs a whooping at a young age to show that doing something wrong has its price. Now before I get slammed for being a child beater or whatever, I dont mean beating them to a pulp, I can remember in grade school getting the paddle was acceptable, and tell you what once somebody got it for doing the "bad" things, everybody knew it and did'nt do the "bad" things anymore. Moral of this short story, nobody wants to be the bad guy and enforce the few doing the "bad" thing. So we make new laws thinking the few doing the "bad" thing will automagically become better. Common Sense has been washed outta this country... good example: "I did'nt have sex with that women !!" Hummer is a Hummer, even if a little one, is sex to the rest of the people.. how did this crap become acceptable behaviour ?? Funny any other government employee would have lost there job over sucha thing along with any benefits and retirement they had coming.... Dooden

[Tim Nielsen]

> Geewiz what is your slow connection ? 300 baud, packet radio ? > The complete digest was a bummer.

Here's a quick tip. In most email apps, if you simply highlight the section by dragging the mouse around it, then hit reply, that will be the only text that is quoted. If you just hit 'reply' your email program will quote the entire message. This extra step (highlight what you actually want to have quoted) won't take any more time, and will make the digests more readable. I actually turn off the preference 'include entire email in reply' so that I 'have' to highlight what I want to quote in a reply. If I want to quote the whole thing, I just hit CNTRL-A, to highlight all the text, then hit reply. Just a thought. But those people including the entire digest in a two line display need to learn better. Forget the bandwith issue, it's just impossible to read those things when you have to hunt for the new messages. In general don't quote unless you're directly responding to something that has been said and you think it needs to appear with your text. Tim