Thouht would pass this along is an old article but since some questions were asked about COLORADO fees.

Questions and Answers about the increase in the OHV Registration Fee
Posted by Glenn on March 30, 2008


Following are a set of questions and comments raised by an OHV enthusiast about the increase in the OHV Registration Fee, and enforcement of the OHV Permit requirement, which was a provision of the original law, but has not previously been enforced. COHVCO’s response is provided where appropriate.

Enthusiast: 1) This is the first I’ve heard about the distinction between permits and registrations. But the rule has always been if and out of state OHV was registered/permitted in a state that granted reciprocity to Colorado, then they got reciprocity there. This year apparently that has changed. Less like motor vehicles, more like hunting. It’s all about the money.


COHVCO: No, it is only partly changed. Wyoming started it by eliminating reciprocity with their registration program last year, and yes, it is “all about the money”. The primary difference between the registration and the permit is that in order to register an OHV, the owner must provide a VIN, year, make, model, and ownership information along with an address, which goes into a data base that can be used, among other things, to track stolen OHVs. Renewal notices will be sent to those who have “registered” their OHVs. To obtain a permit, only the owner’s name and address, along with the make of the OHV are required. No renewal notices are sent for the OHV “Permit”.

Enthusiast: 2) License plates have always been good for accessing off road resources. It was also a very well kept secret. Every year I have to explain the law to my friends from Texas who want to come up here. Why isn’t that info more available? Go try and find it on the web. It’s all about the money.


COHVCO: That information is available on the Colorado State Parks website on the page(s) that reference the OHV Program, however, it is buried in the statute, and does take some digging to find the specific section (Colorado Revised Statutes, Title 33, Article14.5, Section 102.6b). The exemptions for the requirement for both the OHV Permit and the OHV Registration could probably be placed a little more prominently on the State Parks OHV Program page. I will suggest it to Parks. If an OHV, in this case, what would normally be considered a dirt bike is licensed either in Colorado, or another state, then it should be completely street legal by either state’s standards, i.e. insurance, lights, horn, and mirror, and DOT approved tires. The requirement for a permit for a licensed OHV if it is an ATV is a little more complicated. Under Colorado law, an ATV, by definition, is not a motor vehicle, and cannot be licensed. Even if the ATV is licensed in another state, Colorado will not recognize that ATV as a licensed vehicle, and it must have a registration. That point too could be placed a little more prominently on the OHV program website.


Enthusiast: 3) The following quote from the Colorado Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation sounds like “Divide and Conquer” propaganda to me, Colorado vs the world:
Parks: “The OHV community has been feeling this pinch. Colorado Registrations are getting less reciprocity around the country, yet many Out Of State OHV enthusiasts continue to recreate in Colorado for free.”
COHVCO: This is true! Unless the visitors have ponied up for an OHV Regisration or Permit, none of the money they spend goes on the ground to help pay for trail maintenance or facilities construction. A reasonable person would think that if the purpose of the visit was to enjoy what trails we have available to ride, they would be willing and eager to support any activity or program that works to keep those trails accessible by contributing $25.25 to the cause.
Enthusiast And let’s split those Evil Hunters off from these Responsible OHV’ers too (makes the minority smaller, easier to overrun):


COHVCO: Illegal and inappropriate use of OHVs, (almost entirely ATVs) during the hunting season has been a problem for years. When I served on the State Trails Committee in the early to mid 1990s, and investigated complaints about OHV use, the complaints almost exclusively revolved around incidents that occurred during hunting season, and involved hunters. Many hunters do not consider them selves as motorized recreationists. To them, an ATV is just another tool of the hunt, like a skinning knife, of a better sight on their rifle. Most people that made these complaints did not differentiate between what the hunters were doing and the rest of us that use OHVs for recreation.


Parks: “Colorado State Parks (CSP), who administrates the OHV Grant Program, reports that the final straw came in the winter of 06-07. There was a large increase in grant applications that were targeted at repairing storm damage that incurred in October when wet trails were heavily impacted by hunters…many of whom were from out of state and not contributing to the fund.”


COHVCO: This was also probably true!

Enthusiast: You do all remember writing and calling your legislator demanding higher registration fees? And passing a resolution at RRMMC to forward to COHVCO to ask them to lobby for higher fees? Looks like our outpouring was heard and responded to:


COHVCO: Parks did contact OHV folks through COHVCO and RRMMC about their intention to raise the fees.

Parks: “Under pressure from OHV user groups urging that something be done and land managers reporting that Out Of State users have such a huge impact…CSP was tasked with enforcing the non-residents to pay in and decided to enforce the 112 statute. CSP Rangers this year are asking enthusiasts to help with spreading the word and are prone to giving a warning first.”

Enthusiast: Lessee, we’re practically doubling the fee, but we’ll give them warnings at first. You bet. We better ease into this thing, otherwise there might be a revolution!


COHVCO: There was a lot of discussion surrounding the amount of the increase. Because of the way the statute was written, and the policies and guidelines that Parks, or any other state agency has to follow when increasing fees, it would not have been possible to increase the fees again for another 4 or 5 years, and the concern was that a $5.00 increase would not be adequate for that period of time. The hunters will be notified about the fee increase by the Division of Wildlife.

Enthusiast: 4) License plate money goes to DOT and can only be used for roads. The OHV fees go to Parks (NOT COHVCO) and can be used for anything Parks wants to. Including grants for indoctrination (sound tests, stay the trail) and giving money back to the General Fund in times of distress. Parks wanted more money, and “the fee hasn’t been raised since inception” is probably how the discussion went. There was no organized voice to scream NO on behalf of in-state, non-hunting, OHV’ers so it quietly slid through like a thief in the night. It’s all about the money.


COHVCO: The OHV registration/permit dollars cannot “be used for anything Parks wants to.”. The law referenced above describes how the fees from the OHV Registration Program must be used. Generally, the money is to be used to fund OHV related projects and activities, including (indoctrination) education (Stay the Trail). Only once since the program was initiated has money from the OHV Registration Program been provided to the state’s General Fund, and that was a decision made by the State Recreational Trails Committee. Approximately $700,000 was given to the General Fund to help the legislature out of a budget bind. This is one reason that the OHV community (in the form of COHVCO) has credibility with the state legislature. The “organized voice” (COHVCO, RRMMC, and others) supported the proposal to increase the fee, and it did not “slide through like a thief in the night”.

Enthusiast: 5) Our fine state government has itself in a bind. Even after crippling TABOR, they have an unfunded entitlement to the schools that is increasing every year automatically. And we have elected a gaggle of Tax and Spend Democrats to the House, Senate, and Governorship. Now:

Parks: “Maintenance needs and costs have skyrocketed in the last few years. Fuel prices have more than doubled and labor, such as skilled equipment operator labor, is at a high demand further driving up prices.”

Enthusiast: I dunno about you, but I haven’t gotten a 80% pay raise in the last few years to cover my “skyrocketing costs”. I have to live with in my means. But our tax and spend friends in Denver don’t - they just make up a new tax, or fee, or increase an existing one, or restate the language to broaden the net. Have you noticed since TABOR was muzzled all the new fees we now have. It’s all about the money.


COHVCO: In the case of the increase in the fee for the OHV Program, the legislature played no part in requesting the increase. The increase was the result of conversations mostly between COHVCO and State Parks staff.


Enthusiast: 6) Our Tax and Spend friends in Denver tried to raise auto registration to $100. THAT lasted about 10 minutes. As Arnold says, they’ll be back. Highway costs have also skyrocketed, but they’ll have to be gentler because auto owners aren’t a minority (like in-state, non-hunting OHVers). Maybe we could get rid of license plate reciprocity, and make all those skiers buy “permits” to drive to the slopes. It’s still about the money.


COHVCO: Registrations for OHVs, and licenses for cars, trucks, street legal motorcycles, etc are treated differently under the law and from state to state. Again, in Colorado, OHVs, by law, are not “motor vehicles” and cannot be licensed in Colorado, or have their out of state license plates recognized in Colorado. License plate reciprocity for full sized vehicles is addressed by the “full faith and credit” provision of the federal constitution.

Enthusiast: 7) COHVCO is conflicted. They (about 10 guys and gals) would like more money in the grants program. And WE don’t communicate how we feel about things so they think as long as we keep supporting them with money and booths at the RV show, etc. we like what they are doing.


COHVCO: Most of life is about compromise. “You have to give a little to get a little”. Not all of COHVCO’s members or constituents were, or are happy about the fee increase, or about some of the other legislation that COHVCO has supported, but, as you have noted above, people who recreate on OHVs are in the minority, and sometimes it is necessary to be proactive and to support laws that we don’t necessarily want, but do so in order to ward off laws that would be far more restrictive on OHV recreation.

Enthusiast: Over the years COHVCO has lobbied AGAINST legistation to allow ATV’s to be licensed for the street. They have lobbied FOR exhaust noise limiting legislation. The Stay the Trail program dovetails nicely with, and conditions people to accept the Feds Designate or Close the Trail Program.


COHVCO: Yes, COHVCO has not supported efforts to license ATVs for the street. That issue is very complicated, and partly revolves around state constitutional provisions and what happens to the dollars when a license plate is issued (they go to the counties and the general fund). If you have a couple of hours to spend with Jerry Abboud, I am sure his take on the licensing of ATVs for street use will give you something to think about. Yes, COHVCO supports exhaust noise limiting legislation, see my response to #7 below. And it is not about “conditioning the people to accept the Feds Designate or Close the Trail Program”. The “closed unless designated open” provision of the Travel Management Rule (36 CFR26, Parts 212, 251, 261, and 295) is the law now – no conditioning needed.

Enthusiast: Now I’m very much for COHVCO, but I think they aren’t getting enough input from us, and that’s OUR FAULT, not theirs. While I want them to continue being cooperative with the regulatory agencies, I’d like to see them more militant when appropriate. For that happen, we need to let them know what we want.

Enthusiast: Right now, it’s mostly about the grant money.

Enthusiast: How this will all end. Look for OHV stickers to be required for access to OHV resources whether or not you have a license plate (they’re gonna close that loophole as soon as they see the drop in OHV registrations and the rise in Baja Designs lighting kits). Expect some serious squealing form the Jeepers! Look for out of state OHV fees in all states, non-reciprocal - just like hunting and fishing licenses are now. Look for major trail access reductions soon which will require more rangers to enforce. Look for more sound restrictions until you can’t hear an OHV anywhere in the forest. Look for regular fee increases to support enforcement of all there new restrictions. Don’t look for them to reduce the fee proportionate to the reduction in trail mileage.


COHVCO: At this point in time, according to Colorado State Parks, the permit requirement for licensed full sized vehicles will not be enforced. The OHV Permit/Registration requirement will not be enforced on motorcycles (dirt bikes) with a Colorado license plate. We are already seeing the potential for major trail access reductions. If the OHV Registration program wasn’t offering up money to fund trail maintenance projects, we would probably see even more trail access restrictions. What is wrong with having quieter motorcycles in the forest? In the 25 or so years I have been involved with OHV issues in Colorado, I have never been able to come up with a rational, objective reason to justify to land managers or any other person, the need for having a loud motorcycle or ATV on public land. Noise from OHVs is the one club that the environmentalists can and will continue to beat us over the head with until we do something about it.


Enthusiast: Remember you heard it here first. It’s all about the money.


COHVCO: The political and economic reality is that the FS and BLM will continue, for the foreseeable future, to see no increase, and probably reductions in the amount of money they will have to spend on trail, route and camp ground maintenance. If they have no way to maintain these facilities, they can, have, and will continue to close them. We are going to have to be in the continuing position of providing the money to the FS and BLM in order to minimize those closures. In some cases, it might even be possible to gain some new routes and/or trails.


You are right, it is about the money - we need it, and we have it, due to the efforts of COHVCO and the RRMMC, among others. Hopefully most of it will go to on-the-ground projects, but it can also be spent to challenge FS and BLM travel management and land use decisions when and where it can do the most good.

Interesting reading Cob.

Thanks for getting that posted Cob. That is lots of what has been talked about at our monthly meetings at RRMMC and glad to see that Glen has gotten everything into one comprehensive document.


This would probably be a good sticky in the Rock Hoppers section so that when folks visit the forum prior to visiting, they will see it there.