Originally Posted by kb8ymf
Once again the DNR is making statements that do not reflect what is currently in practice on the ground. For example, In West Branch there are many trails we went on @ SnoFari that were marked ORV Trail but were clearly wide enough for full size vehicles. And some that were not.
TYhere are plenty of cotradicting examples that can be used to refute any citation that might be issued.
I think the general statement that unlicensed vehicles are allowed to travel down those trails would be more correct. ORV Routes that are designated to fit full size vehicles allow us to use 4WD as you can not otherwise. In nearly 99% of the time the vehicles that use Routes are already street licensed. A few of the Razor/Rhino breed of vehicles will also use these as fitting down a quad trail is normally no fun if you can't drive it @ Mach 8.
Thanks for bringing that up again Ken, yohoo, Mr. B...........Could you please bring in the boxes of material so that I may go through them to try and find the letter.
Thanks Jim excellent explanation! It makes sense now, If the trail meets the forest road definition “can be traveled by a conventional 2-wheel-drive vehicle designed for highway use” but has the Designated ORV Trail signage VS. the sign shown in the attachment, it is o.k. for quads and such that are 50” or less to travel on (with an ORV sticker) but vehicles wider than 50” require a SOS license.
Where as a “ROUTE” allows any vehicle size with a SOS license or without SOS providing it has an ORV sticker, and 4 wheel-drive may be used.
I think I just rewrote what you said…
I have been down many forest roads and found myself on “ORV Trails”, that continued to meet the forest road definition, and have generally got off them as fast as I could to avoid a possible ticket. Now with this new information, and respectfully treating them like other forest roads, its o.k..
Thanks again !