Ducky

Saw this in a Newsgroup: (Minnesota only i think)

http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/c...&number=sf2793

http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/...ota_SF2793.txt

okay, here's the whole deal
>
> http://www.senate.leg.state.mn.us
>
> senate file 2793 chief author frederickson in subdivision 1 section c
> reads
>
> "A person may not operate an off-highway vehicle off-road on public
> land or public waters with an air intake pipe that is more than six
> inches above the manufacturer's original air-intake pipe"
>
> in MN an off highway vehicle is defined as an ATV (all terrain
> vehicle i.e. a three or four wheeler like a Honda Foreman, etc.), an
> OHM (off-highway motorcycle), and an ORV (off-road vehicle) which is
> what a land cruiser would fall under.
>
> now, the definition of an ORV is a vehicle licensed under MN statute
> blah blah blah (which means a vehicle that is highway licensed) that
> is then taken off road. so, if there were a toyota corolla that
> wanted to go on a "trail" (NOT a forest road) in a state forest say
> to go berry picking (yes, in MN this is a reality), that corolla then
> becomes an ORV.
>
> highway licensed vehicles are NOT exempt from this snorkel ban.
>
> the proposed ban makes it illegal to operate an ATV, OHM, or ORV with
> a snorkel while off road on state lands, not just state forests, but
> any state lands. there are exemptions for those doing utility,
> logging, or farm work and such.
>
> so, i can keep my snorkels on my trucks and be fine as long as i am
> never off road on any state lands with them. otherwise, to be in
> compliance while off road on state lands, i would have to remove my
> safari snorkel from my truck. ya, right, like i can do that.
>
> my three diesel cruisers are daily drivers for me. i put snorkels on
> for all the well known on road reasons. and keep in mind water and
> wetland crossings are already illegal here! but my trucks are also
> my trail rigs and do see trail time anywhere from 5% to 15% of the
> time. this law would force me to forgo a furture or undo a current
> modification that is really designed and used for on road purposes
> only on trucks are on road the majority of the time. most of the
> trucks in MN that have snorkels are also mostly road denizens (land
> rovers). the only trucks that are truly off road only trailer queens
> are some of the suzukis with the RPMs club. so this law is really the
> biggest punishment to people who have highway licensed vehicles with
> snorkels on them for the obvious smart on road reasons who wish to
> take those particular trucks off road from time to time on MN state
> lands.
> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> And NO, this is NOT a late April Fool's joke.

kyle_22r

what kind of screwed up logic is behind that idea? it's like saying it's illegal to have a roll bar on the back of your truck :wtf:

toy283

I'm curious as to why such a bill would exist? It's not like they have any effect on emissions. Someone must've hit a pedestrian who then complained because the snorkel hurt too much when he hit it.

Arnold

I was thinking the same thing.

White SR5

Nah you guys got it all wrong... someone was flying their pet bird around outside on the sidewalk and an "ORV" drove by and it got sucked in.

96LtdYota

oh if this were only true.....

Dan_90SR5

Well, I have an idea as to the reason for this. I know with cars....imports inpaticularly, cops have been baggering people about their tachs. They are saying that it obstructs the drivers view. I can see where they might think the same thing about snorkels. They are not a big obstruction of view, because they are designed not to be.....just like tachs aren't. There are just alot of people in this world that like to sit on their ass at home and ruin everyone elses hobbies.

Like the whole SUV thing. Trucks and even cars use the same engines. Why not fight to get rid of all cars? No one is trying to get ride of Corvettes.....Vipers........Bugattis(sp?).....all of these cars are large displacement gas gussling cars. No one is trying to get ride of them because they use too much gas, which is the whole argument behind the SUV thing.

People are just ill educated and set out to make other peoples' lives less enjoyable. I hope someone will finally stand up for something in this world. I know if they told me I couldn't have a snorkel and I wanted one on my truck, I'd have alot of ticket and fight it everyday. Park my truck in from of city hall, etc.

justinh

actually corvettes get good gas mileage, something like 26mpg on the highway yeah yeah yeah off topic the law is really stupid though!

WATRD

I have been following similar proposals in a couple of areas. The driving reason behind them seems to be to protect "wetland" areas. The argument is that if you have a snorkel, you are more likely to submerge your rig where you are not supposed to.

In other words, if you rig is stock, there is a limit to the amount of damage you can do. If you extend the intake, you can go deeper and theoretically cause more damage.

One of the boards I monitor has more than it's fair share of four-wheeling lawyers and they are arguing that the law is "prior restraint", that is, it keeps you from doing something legal, because it *might* lead to something illegal. The counter argument is that they have other requirements for vehicles on state land, like mufflers, spark arresters and the like and this is just another rule like that.

It should be interesting.

foxtrapper

I read through the bill, and some of the existing language, and it doesn't appear the complaint is as claimed. It applies to Off-highway vehicles only, which the mentioned Land Cruiser and Toyota Corolla are not. It's only going to apply to dedicated trail rigs as I understand it.

In reading a number of the hand wringing complaints, I personally find it rather peculiar the claims that snorkels are *not* for crossing deep waters.

I'm not a fan of laws like this. But it appears the opposition is side stepping and dancing, instead of dealing with it directly.

transalper

I'm from MN, in the conservation field, and am familiar with this legislation. It is intended to keep ATVs out of swamps and wetlands. The legislation is a result of a combination of factors IMO. I've heard Department of Natural Resources employees talk about seeing ATVs running their ATVs through open water wetlands, which made quite an impression on them. MN also has pretty weak rules regarding use of ATVs in public ditches. Motorcycles and trucks are not allowed in public ditches (for obvious reasons - safety, erosion, etc), but ATVs have open access unless the county adopts a specific ordinance. Riding in ditches seems to lead to ATVs crossing a lot of open water (probably because ditches are so boring).

The legislation as worded does seem to apply to all OHVs, which include 4x4 trucks. I'm curious to see where this ends up. There are a lot of 4x4s with snorkels out there.

shazaam

just put mine on last week

7inl35swinchtacoma99

hey off topic and REALLY LATE (laszt post 04 07 04) but im hoping someone will answer i am looking into getting a snorkle i just want some opinions on how well they work in all conditions.... hp gains or noise factors.... i dont think i will be taking it that deep anyway. but they still look cool.... just making sure im not getting junk i will have to take off later.

ctcost

Pays to vote. The author of that bill is an idiot.Needs some other language written into it if they want to make it acceptable, or, a different approach needs to be taken.

jruz

Lame...
Who's to say you don't have a large parcel of property with a water crossing during the wet times of the year.

Sounds like what the MPAA and RIAA are doing lately...

Bumpin' Yota

This is what we all should be doing to those idiotic lawyers.

Transalper - Maybe those game wardens should go ARREST those destroying the wetlands then. They do here! Hell they impound, auction the vehicle, ticket, and arrest.... At Myaka park here in FL on SR72, some idiot's took their mini SUV down to lake side when the water was really low. (Paved road park, on road driving ONLY.) That equated to a 200 yard drive through sawgrass about 5' tall. Needless to say they got their bright orange geo tracker stuck... Not only did they have to help get it out, but then had the book thrown at them as well, as they rightly should have.

7inl35swinchtacoma99

thanks for the reply ????????? but yea i agree if take the risk of getting in trouble your should not complane when you do.. there are areas that are set out for that stuff and it only takes a short drive to get there..... although those environmentalist are screwing everything up i live in california and every year there is some talk about how they want to close one of our SVRA down or make it smaller bc of some stupid bird.....i say lets us play in the designated ares, .eave us alone , or we will come into your back yard and tear that up instead.

Bigkahuna808

I feel your pain. There is so much illegal here in hawaii with cars and trucks. From tint laws, to body kits, motor swaps, turbo/ intercoolers, and even roll cages. Not untill recently was it allowed to have cages. But even though you have a cage, you cant have a seat belt harness. You got to use you stock belts no matter what.

7inl35swinchtacoma99

yea some laws have no logic behind them as far as i can see . then again my friend has about everything "you are not suppose to have" in his honda and he just takes it out before he gets smogged or has a friend pass it for him.. im not for breaking the law but sometimes you can break the law and make a point at the same time and show those bastards that they cant tell you what to do.

x-elite

I live in Texas, and unless I'm sorely mistaen, the elgistlation here doens't give a flip. I've gone off roaidng in ditches, under bridges, through the local rivers and streams, I've paid $3 for an all day pass to the mud pits out here as well. I'll stop reverse and drive off road into a standing pool of water if I see it and it looks challenging enough. Even if there is laws against it, to hell with it. Off-roading to me is an expression of freedom, and any contempt of that freedom is a personal attack on me. I will enevr stop off-raiduing like I do, depsite hte fact that there is almost no laws against it here, if there were, I wouldn't care. I crawl up the side of graveled rail road tracks in the broad daylight and no one seems to care. And to any of you safety idiots who tlak about the "appropiate place," grow a pair, off roading is a sport desinged for you to be more reckless than you ordinarily are. I've wrecked 3 vehicles off roading, I paid a comibined total of 3,200 for all three of them. Point of this is, I didn't care about wrekcing them. The entertianment is, by its very nature, reckless. If you don't like it, do soemthing else. If your happy with the trail runs that any idiot can go through babying and idling his new 4x4 explorer, I'm happy for you, but as for me, give me liberty or go Fork yourself.