Jeepers get charged double at dunes...

Under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, input from the subgroup will be presented directly to the DAC for its deliberation and consideration. The DSG replaces the ISDRATRT.

Moderator: Sitewide Forum Moderators

User avatar
My1stJeep
3rd Gear Member
3rd Gear Member
Posts: 73
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2006 2:49 pm
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: Surprise, AZ

Jeepers get charged double at dunes...

Post by My1stJeep » Thu Mar 23, 2006 2:28 pm

I have to admit this year has been lean for me going to the dunes. My first trip this year with the new pass sales was not a pleasant one. When I first arrived, in motorhome with Jeep in tow on a flatbed trailer, I greated at the trailer, went up and paid, was told at the desk I still only needed on pass.

Next day I come down to find a trash can (camped at Midway, could not see the new trash cans as someone was camped in front of it), since just to drop off trash I took the road. At the main intersection I get asked for my pass, I told them it was in the Motorhome, which is where the day before when I showed up I was told to leave it and I am told I have to buy one for my Jeep too or get a ticket. Huh????

I go to the desk, question this and everyone around me except those at the table agree this is wrong. Not to have to pay a ticket I go ahead an buy a second pass.

So I am told, I am basically being penalized for recreating in a Jeep because there is not way for them to tell if I drove the Jeep in or trailered it. There is a "drive on the road free card" to traverse non-street legal vehicles over the bridge between Buttercup and Gordons Well, but we have no plan on how to handle Jeeps towed in??? This makes no sense. Why should it matter if I trailer in a rail, quad, bike or Jeep? It shold not and there should be a way to handle it.

Either a pass with a detachable bottom portion tha tlink your vehicle and motorhome, a second pass for trailered in vehicles, a sticker program, something so that I don't get penalized for my choice of vehicles.

Since then I have been in contact with the BLM, written the TRT and talked to many from the ASA, however I have heard nothing back as to what is going to be done. Frankly for me to go to the dunes I barrow a family members motorhome, a friends trailer and put my daily driver on the trailer (use the trailer incase of break downs). I don't have the money to have a bunch of toys like some others do(not that there is a problem with it, I wish I could), but to add having to buy two passes is just an extra cost that puts a much harder strain on many of us and it plain is not fair. I mean a guy rolls out in a motorhome towing a rail, 4 quads and a golf cart, he buys one pass, I come in my motorhome with Jeep on a trailer and I have to buy two?

Does anyone have an update as to where this stands for next year? I know there are plenty of other issues going on as well, but this needs to be addressed before next year begins.

User avatar
My1stJeep
3rd Gear Member
3rd Gear Member
Posts: 73
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2006 2:49 pm
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: Surprise, AZ

Post by My1stJeep » Thu Mar 23, 2006 3:57 pm

Props to the TRT, since this post and an email I received a response in only a couple hours. Albeight not the response I wanted.

According to the TRT the sheriff's office they don't enforce the second pass unless they see the Jeep on a roadway. Ok,simple I keep my Jeep in the sand and no problem. Oops what if I cross over the bridge to go from Buttercup to Gordons Well? The issue will not go away that easily. Currenlty there is a variance that allows non-street legal vehicles to cross over the bridge, we need some sort of variance for the Jeeps as well. I am just looking that the over all scheme needs to be equitable. The current system is not.

I hope the TRT and the ASA will continue to put pressure on them to find a viable solution that is fair.

User avatar
jhitesma
7th Gear "No Brakes" Member
7th Gear "No Brakes" Member
Posts: 7791
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2000 9:57 pm
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by jhitesma » Thu Mar 23, 2006 6:56 pm

I raised this issue at the UDG meeting in Yuma before the season started. The person in charge of the pass program at the ICSO said it would not be an issue and they would not be requiring passes on street legal vehicles as long as they're not driven on any streets.

I pointed out the situation about the bridge in the south dunes and he was basically clueless about it. But assured me that it would not be an issue because "we haven't even considered the possibility of needing to use checkpoints so there's no reason you'd even have to think about being stopped."

Of course that fell through before the "season" even started.

They still claim it's not an issue but obviously it is.

I know the TRT is NOT happy about it but so what. The TRT as good intentioned as they are are actually powerless - there's nothing binding the BLM (and by extension the ICSO) to actually implement any of the TRT's input.

Unfortunatly the only way we'll get justice in this case is if someone gets a ticket and takes it to court. The problem with that is most of us who can't afford two passes just because our vehicle is street legal (but towed in) also can't afford legal representation to fight a ticket like that. And to the rest $90 for a second pass is no big deal so they don't care.

For reference here's the link to the thread where I posted recordings of the UDG meeting and you can hear McNay say this wouldn't be an issue:
http://www.americansandassociation.org/ ... ht=meeting

User avatar
My1stJeep
3rd Gear Member
3rd Gear Member
Posts: 73
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2006 2:49 pm
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: Surprise, AZ

Post by My1stJeep » Fri Mar 24, 2006 12:01 pm

Thanks for the info and the link to the previous post.

I agree the TRT can only do so much, but I think they do help us in having a voice.

My concern is the ICSO was hired to sell passes and enforce BLM rules, not their own agenda. I actually think it is more like additional training is needed so that officers there know what they are doing and correctly enforce the rules/laws. I have contacted the ICSO and have relayed their comments to the TRT and the BLM.

My hopes is that if the issue is kept alive we can finally come to a resolution that we can all live with.

User avatar
LoBuck
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 6786
Joined: Sun Jun 30, 2002 12:48 am
antispam: NO
Please enter the middle number: 7
Location: Yuma, AZ
Contact:

Post by LoBuck » Fri Mar 24, 2006 12:52 pm

Part of the problem the ICSO is having with permit enforcement, and in this case sales, is that they are using non-law enforcement county employees and they are not given enough instruction.

As Jason mentioned in his post above, the ICSO does have a way to address towed in street licensed vehicle used in the dunes. As long as they are not driven on the roads, and stay in the sand, while at the ISDRA there will be no need for a second permit.

The problem comes when you have "just anybody" doing sales and trying to enforce it. Based on info I have, most of the time the insistance that a second permit is needed is coming from a person selling the permits, not an LEO.

The issue of the Buttercup to Gordons crossing has been identifed, discussed, and addressed by the BLM and ICSO. There is criteria that they are to look for to determine if the Jeep/Manx/etc is indeed a primary vehicle (driven to the ISDRA) and needs a permit. Here are a couple:

It highly unlikely that a vehicle with paddes, or low pressure tires, drove to the dunes on the highway.
It is not likely that a vehicle with a whip and flag drove to the dunes.

Personally, and as a TRT Member, I feel there is an absolute a need for some kind of secondary permit that is tied directly to a primary permit. This has been discussed at nearly every TRT meeting and several other occassions with BLM & ICSO. It will continue to be brought up. There needs to be resolution on this issue.

I'm trying to recall the agenda item this issue was discussed at the 1/24/06 TRT meeting. Permit sales and enforcement were discussed in nearly every agenda items of that meeting and can be hear in the Audio Recordings on the ISDRATRT.org website.
Glenn Montgomery - KE7BTP
'79 CJ5
http://www.YumaDuners.com - LoBuck's Web Page
DAC ISDRA Sub Group Member - AZ OHV Rep BLM ISDRA DSG webpage

User avatar
travis624
4th Gear Member
4th Gear Member
Posts: 108
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2001 4:26 pm

Post by travis624 » Fri Mar 24, 2006 1:13 pm

Although I don't own a jeep, I see a lot of them in the dunes with paddle tires, if they cross pavement they go very slowly so not to tear up the paddles. I would think if you had paddles on your jeep there wouldn't be an argument if it was a towed in or drive in while dunning. I can't see doing 55 or 60 mph or even 30 mph on pavement with paddles, probably not to safe or legal. Would Paddles or some kind of off hi-way farm implement tires make a jeep non-usable/illegal for street usage and thus for OHV use only and no pass required??? I don't know, just thinking.....

User avatar
My1stJeep
3rd Gear Member
3rd Gear Member
Posts: 73
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2006 2:49 pm
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: Surprise, AZ

Post by My1stJeep » Fri Mar 24, 2006 1:30 pm

Just to clarify, I had the low pressure in my tires and I have a 8' whip mounted about 3.5' off the ground. The bridge crossing is the biggest issue.

However to clarify, according to my conversation with the ICSO I was told that every street legal vehicle MUST have a pass and they were doing us a favor by letting it slide. If I do stay on one side or the other and do not cross over the bridge I am ok, but I should not be limiited. I was also informed when I asked about street legal sand rails, that they are not street legal. I agree most are not, but there are some.

The secondary pass to me seems like the easist way to go, it does not cost the user anything more and it allows the law enforcment to identify you as a paid visitor.

I can appreciate the tire swap to paddles, would help the dune look, and when I get a bigger motor I will be looking into that, however I have a 4 banger (with some performance mods) and while she does really great out there, not enough ponies to turn paddles in the sand...LOL

User avatar
Doc
Website Admin
Website Admin
Posts: 494
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2000 9:42 pm

Post by Doc » Fri Mar 24, 2006 1:32 pm

This has been my proposal to address this issue. I have sent this to the TRT and I hope that we can, at some point set up a committee that can address this issue and generate some solutions that can be implemented before the next season. The time frame is tight as the implementation phase must be in place prior to the printing of the 2007-2007 passes. The passes will go on sale at the sand show in September so any solution needs to be included in the planning for next season.







AD HOC committee for review the second pass issue


Issues

• Same family utilizing a additional passenger vehicle to enter the fee area
• A towed in street legal passenger vehicle used for transportation in the fee area
• A towed in street legal passenger vehicle driven between off road areas within the fee area
• Visitation to the fee area for a short term period (i.e. visit a existing campsite for a few hours)


Plan to address the issues


• Convene an AD-HOC committee to come up with solution to the second pass issues
• Committee to present workable solutions to BLM management
• Committee to have workable solutions available for implementation prior to 2006-2007 season


Proposed members of the AD-HOC committee

• BLM representatives from areas where user fees are collected

o ISDRA
o Dumont
o Other areas?

• Representatives from user groups

o ISDRA TRT
o Dumont TRT
o Others?

• Representatives from fee collection vendors
o ICSO
o Others?

Jerry Seaver
ASA Co-Founder • Past President
ASA Co-Founder • Past President
Posts: 962
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2000 4:48 pm
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: USA

Post by Jerry Seaver » Fri Mar 24, 2006 5:47 pm

This a problem that we will keep bringing up when talking to the County and the BLM.

One idea is when you trailer or tow a vehicle into the ISDRA for off road use that is recognized as street legal, is to take the street legal plate off while you are at the ISDRA. As long as the vehicle is used off road and isn't anywhere a non street legal vehicle can be used, it won't get confused with a primary vehicle that requires a permit.

Now if what everybody is really talking about is a second vehicle permit, that 's a completely different problem. If you tow a vehicle that is street legal with the intent to use it to run to town or a second vehicle that is going to come down later but the occupants are going to stay in the camper with the permit. The County or the BLM aren't set up to be able to control the use of that kind of permit.

User avatar
Sand Commander
6th Gear "Wide Open" Member
6th Gear "Wide Open" Member
Posts: 1566
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2001 1:45 pm
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: Huntington Beach, CA

Post by Sand Commander » Fri Mar 24, 2006 6:52 pm

The County or the BLM aren't set up to be able to control the use of that kind of permit.
I don't think just because the ICSO don't want to deal with an issue that means it doesn't exist or isn't a problem.

It would go a long way to giving the TRT some credibility if the ICSO would listen to them and come up with a solution.
Bill Jones
Apathy is the greatest danger to our freedom.
If you give in to fear and pain, there are thrills you will never know- North Dallas Forty
Government by the people has now been replaced by Government verses the people
The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter- Winston Churchill

Jerry Seaver
ASA Co-Founder • Past President
ASA Co-Founder • Past President
Posts: 962
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2000 4:48 pm
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: USA

Post by Jerry Seaver » Fri Mar 24, 2006 9:22 pm

It would go a long way to giving the TRT some credibility if the ICSO would listen to them and come up with a solution.
The TRT can only make recommendation to the BLM, just like the DAC. The BLM many times leans toward those recommendations as long as there isn't any regulations that prevent them from doing them. The ICSO has a assistance agreement with the BLM. That's the pecking order. The ICSO compliance team is required to give progress reports to the TRT along with being present to answer questions at the meetings. The best any of us can hope for is that the BLM listens to the recommendations and takes them in consideration when deciding what they are going to do. As far as the TRT having credibility, if you are thinking the the TRT could be in a position to make the BLM do what they tell them, that won't ever happen. The TRT is there to give the BLM input and to make recommendation per their mission statement.

If you have a solution that would be cost affective and is doable within the regulations the TRT is a good vehicle to get it considered by the BLM.

azsandrider
7th Gear "No Brakes" Member
7th Gear "No Brakes" Member
Posts: 2864
Joined: Fri Jan 19, 2001 2:28 pm
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: Mesa, Az.

Post by azsandrider » Sat Mar 25, 2006 3:29 pm

My Suggestion:

When you buy a permit, you get a permit for the RV (motorhome or trailer) and a second permit for a secondary vehicle or tow vehicle. That passes should be clearly marked with colored borders to easily determine a RV pass from the second vehicle pass. The passes should have matching numbers with a "SV" for secondary vehicle and "RV" for the RV after the number. The family name should also be written on the back of each pass and must match.

That way, when pass compliance enforcement personnel drive by the camps, they can tell that a visitor has a permot for the RV, even if the tow vehicle may be gone. Plus, this would prohibit one tow vehicle with a pass bringing in multiple RVs. It would also allow for a Motorhome to have a second vehicle.
Last edited by azsandrider on Tue Mar 28, 2006 2:50 am, edited 1 time in total.
(The above statement is my own opinion and not that of the ASA's.)

T. Wight
Mesa, AZ.
ASA Supporting Member
ASA Volunteer

Is your spouse an ASA member??? Numbers count!!

Jerry Seaver
ASA Co-Founder • Past President
ASA Co-Founder • Past President
Posts: 962
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2000 4:48 pm
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: USA

Post by Jerry Seaver » Sat Mar 25, 2006 4:15 pm

If I understand what your suggestion is azsandrider, some people would be getting two permits for the price of one. This has been discussed before and everyone's thought was that the price of permits would have to be increased to make up for people using the secondary vehicle permit. The consenses was that it wouldn't be fair for people that aren't bringing in a secondary vehicle to subsidize the people that are bringing in a secondary vehicles and the possibilities for abusing that system is very high. Without a entry gate so vehicles can be checked coming and going it is differcult to come up with a system that can affectively do day permits, and secondary vehicle permits.

The problem with secondary vehicles that people want permits for is a totally separate issue from having a system for identifying a towed street legal vehicle entering the ISDRA.

It's good for anyone with suggestions to post them or send them to the TRT. It would also be a good idea to play devil's advocate before sending the suggestions.

User avatar
Sand Commander
6th Gear "Wide Open" Member
6th Gear "Wide Open" Member
Posts: 1566
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2001 1:45 pm
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: Huntington Beach, CA

Post by Sand Commander » Sun Mar 26, 2006 11:53 am

entry gate so vehicles can be checked coming and going
The last thing I want is gates. Once gates are installed we are doomed.

The logic of raising the permit costs to cover a short fall if you stop double charging some people doesn't make sence to me. This sounds like greedy money grabbing bureaucracy instead of honestly dealing with the small percentage of duners this problem applies to. WE pay the fees and WE should be treated fairly, even if its a inconvenience to ICSO.

I still say there is a compromise solution here. The secondary pass is a viable solution if administered properly. It won't be free money dropping in their laps, but it is the right thing to do.
Bill Jones
Apathy is the greatest danger to our freedom.
If you give in to fear and pain, there are thrills you will never know- North Dallas Forty
Government by the people has now been replaced by Government verses the people
The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter- Winston Churchill

Jerry Seaver
ASA Co-Founder • Past President
ASA Co-Founder • Past President
Posts: 962
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2000 4:48 pm
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: USA

Post by Jerry Seaver » Sun Mar 26, 2006 2:47 pm

I still say there is a compromise solution here. The secondary pass is a viable solution if administered properly. It won't be free money dropping in their laps, but it is the right thing to do.
You may be right. Using the term, "adminsitered properly," is to general for me to understand what you have in mind. One of the problems is, what is being talked about on this thread is being said in very general terms. Need to define what it is we are talking about. We need to define a secondary vehicle if that is what we are talking about. In passed discussions at some of the TRT meetings, it was being defined as broad as, if I pay for permit and my wife or friend comes down later but is staying with me in my camper why can't he come in on a secondary permit or be added to the permit that is for my camper. Part of the problem with that is by regs the permit is issued to the primary vehicle, which means that it isn't issued to a camper. If you are driving a motor home, it is the primary vehicle. if you are coming in a truck pulling a trailer that you camp in, the permit is issued to the truck, not the trailer. The camp trailer does not need a permit, only the primary vehicle used to enter the ISDRA. As it stands today the permit isn't a camping permit but a use permit and is issued to a primary vehicle entering the ISDRA.

If we are going to define a secondary vehicle as a vehicle that is street legal and has to be towed in by a primary vehicle, that is something different.

"Compromise Solution," throw it out for everybody to take a look at. The solution needs to take several things into account. It needs to be structured so it can't be misused by many and is possible to do under what ever collection system is being used to collect fees. But first you have to define what is going to be a secondary vehicle, then come up with the solution.

User avatar
jhitesma
7th Gear "No Brakes" Member
7th Gear "No Brakes" Member
Posts: 7791
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2000 9:57 pm
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by jhitesma » Sun Mar 26, 2006 5:24 pm

One vital question I've never got an acceptable answer to is: What is the official definition of "Primary Vehicle" and where is this definition found?

The second part of that is the tricky bit.

Previous to this year I was told that a primary vehicle is "one which is driven to the recreation site". But this year with the changes it was redefined as "a street legal vehicle which is driven on a street while at the ISDRA". and that's where the big problem came.

This should be an easy one to fight in court. As long as we are still innocent until proven guilty. At least under the original definition of "Primary Vehicle" as "one which is driven to the recreation site." It would fall on the shoulders of the LEO to prove that the vehicle in question WAS driven to the site which would be quite difficult to achieve. So even if you did get a ticket getting out of it would be simple.

The problem with the new definition is that suddenly doing something in a Jeep or Manx like driving from Buttercup to Gordon's will require a second pass even though rails and quads don't require separate passes. But again it would fall on the LEO to prove that you were on a road. And at that point it would pretty much come down to the LEO's word vs. the duners and we all know who a judge will favor in that situation.

And I still find it very distressing that they continue to call it a "Primary Vehicle" though the current definition makes it possible to have more than one primary vehicle per person which is a logical impossibility.

The big question though remains. Where is the official definition written?

User avatar
DuneRookie
5th Gear "Pinned" Member
5th Gear "Pinned" Member
Posts: 496
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 7:57 pm
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: San Diego

Post by DuneRookie » Mon Mar 27, 2006 9:03 am

Why not do a second pass like the infamous Adventure pass. When you buy one for $ 30 you can get a second for $5.00.....so why not buy a primary for $ 90 get a second for $ 10 or what ever......You have to buy the primary to get the second one..........

L&L Corvairs
ASA Board Member
ASA Board Member
Posts: 1631
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2002 6:29 pm
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: Ontario, Calif.

Post by L&L Corvairs » Mon Mar 27, 2006 9:15 am

Going to suggest first that this thread be split. One for discussion of a ‘Secondary “Primary” Vehicle Pass” (for a vehicle that will be driven to the site and NOT used off road) and one for the issues of ‘Towed’ street legal vehicles that are primarily used for off road recreation.


I am limiting my comments to the ‘Secondary “Primary” Vehicle Pass” issue and all comments related to “Primary Pass” mean it’s a $90.00 season pass. I see no reason to offer ‘Secondary Vehicle Passes’ to weekend pass purchasers.

Stepping back, and looking at the ‘larger’ picture, this isn’t Rocket Science. Having a secondary pass, tied to the primary pass for a second vehicle, is very doable. All that is really being argued are the mechanics of the process. If/when the BLM adopts the mindset that they will offer secondary vehicle passes, and then a process can be developed. The BLM/ICSO (sorry) is really throwing smoke/diversion when they complain about the ‘problems’ of the ‘mechanics’ of the process. They just don’t want to be bothered.

Yes, the pass purchasing process would become a little more burdensome for both the pass vendor and the purchaser. So what? Most ISDRA visitors would, IMO, be willing to go through the extra effort to buy a ‘secondary’ pass if they could do so at a reduced rate. The BLM/ICSO needs to adjust.

Consider this: Sell passes just as is currently done. The buyer gets one “Primary Pass” and can remain anonymous, whether they get a plastic pass or their paper receipt. Those people who want a secondary pass must first obtain a plastic pass (which really isn’t all that hard to do now) and take it to the pass vendor (right now, the ISCO) during reasonable business hours (those hours being adjusted to support visitor/customer service i.e. Weekends/Holidays/Friday Evenings), a copy of the primary vehicle registration and a copy of the secondary vehicle registration. The primary pass is then imprinted with the license plate number of the primary vehicle and a secondary pass, when issued is imprinted with BOTH the primary vehicle license plate and the secondary vehicle license plate number. The imprinting should be by ‘punching’ the number through the plastic, in large enough characters so they can be seen from out side the vehicle when the pass is properly displayed. Secondary vehicle passes should cost in the $20.00 range.

Actually, having the vehicle registration wouldn’t even be necessary. It could be left up to the ‘user’ (i.e. vehicle owner) to make sure he supplied the correct license plate numbers when getting his passes imprinted. BLM/ICSO simply imprints whatever number is requested. If the user screws up, it’s a ‘too bad’ on him.

People buy and sell vehicles all the time. What about them? Simple. Take the passes with the old numbers in, and for a nominal fee, trade them for new ones.

When enforcement comes by, and the displayed pass number doesn’t match the vehicle license plate…too bad. Ticket time.

This eliminates pass sharing/swapping. Yes, the pass vendor would have to purchase some equipment. In the larger scheme of things, it won’t cost that much, and won’t really add that much of a burden, especially if the ICSO gets the basic pass vending machines back on line next season.

“Pass vendor” for my discussion is defined as the Primary entity responsible for selling permits, which right now is ICSO. I know there are plans/discussions to have the permits sold by private businesses. Those sales should be limited to the basic permit.

The intent is to provide a reasonable service to those families/people who really do drive that second car out there. 99% of the time, that second car is gonna be sitting in camp, right next to the primary vehicle.


Now, if the RFID stuff, which, while I knew little about except the theory, works, a good chunk of the above process would be simplified and some eliminated.

As for impact on revenue, quite honestly, I don’t think it will change. Yes, some $$$ will be lost because some people will only buy a $90 primary pass and a $20 secondary pass; but that will be offset by eliminating a lot of the ‘pass sharing’ that goes on now.

In the mean time, I’ll argue that the above will WORK. It won’t necessarily be PERFECT, but what have we got now? The key will be the BLM/ICSO. As I stated, they have to want to do this. They SHOULD do it.
L&L
It is not ours to decide the times in which we live.
It is only ours to decide what to do with the time given us.

Make the most of your time.

User avatar
CrstyDmn
4th Gear Member
4th Gear Member
Posts: 243
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2005 11:41 am
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: San Gabriel Valley

Post by CrstyDmn » Mon Mar 27, 2006 10:36 am

Not cool for Jeeps.
You should not "Have" to have paddles on either....or keep off the road.
They should give you some sort of Tag or Sticker thats clearly marks your Jeep as a towed in when you purchase your permit.
'03 CHEVY 2500HD 6.0L CREWCAB 4X4 w/RCD 6" Lift on Bilsteins w/35" BFG's
'00 HONDA TRX400EX
'78 HONDA ATC70

User avatar
jhitesma
7th Gear "No Brakes" Member
7th Gear "No Brakes" Member
Posts: 7791
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2000 9:57 pm
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by jhitesma » Mon Mar 27, 2006 10:44 am

Tying any pass to a vehicle registration is big new step that I can't support in any way shape or form.

I have three separate vehicles that I may choose to drive out depending on the situation. But I only have one me. With the passes assigned to a person as they are now that's fine, I just take my pass in whichever vehicle I'm going to use. The rule is the pass is non-transferable "While in the ISDRA" so I'm not breaking any rules.

With passes locked to a registration Suddenly I have to buy three passes even though there is still only one of me and only one vehicle at a time that could even be there.

And there is no way I would support having to pay any kind of fee for a new pass just because I sold my vehicle.

That's a solution that creates more problems than it solves.

User avatar
My1stJeep
3rd Gear Member
3rd Gear Member
Posts: 73
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2006 2:49 pm
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: Surprise, AZ

Post by My1stJeep » Mon Mar 27, 2006 10:50 am

Only problem with the secondary pass being in the $20 range is why so much? Why should I who brings in one toy (my Jeep on a trailer) behind my motor home have to pay and extra $20 to recreate whle the guy with a sand rail or two plus 4-8 quads and a golf cart not have to pay any extra?

A secondary pass is not going to cost that much more, simply do away with the fancy picture passes, the correct passes are supposed to have those chips in them anyway in the future, so save themoney on the fancy picture and you now have the money for the secondary pass.

As for taking the license plate off while at the dunes that posses another problem. To operate your vehicle in the dunes it must be registered, with a street legal plate or a green OHV use sticker. If I remove the plate that will be a whole different ticket that I would have little change of winning that battle in court. However it posses the question if I did that and bought the OHV use sticker would that be ok? Can you even register your vehicle both ways (may be a conflict)? Plus then aren't I still having to play by different rules other than what is documented by having it street legal it says it is ok, but now I am paying again for another registration for the OHV, if that is even allowed, which I don't think it would be.

Keep the ideas coming, the more we all discuss this the better, sooner or later the right idea and balance will hit and we will find the solution.

f-BOB
5th Gear "Pinned" Member
5th Gear "Pinned" Member
Posts: 912
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2005 3:21 pm
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: Buena Park, CA

Post by f-BOB » Mon Mar 27, 2006 10:55 am

Lloyd's idea woudl work (or something like it) for secondary vehicles that are not used for duning. Here's my idea for those trailed in vehicles that are used for duning:
towed in vehicles only: You must stop to obtain a "permit" for the towed in, dune only vehicle. It can be something as simple as a duplicate form that the ICSO gets one part of, and you keep the other. Basic info, owner's name, license plate # of the towed vehicle. No charge. That takes care of one part of the problem, the other part is getting the ICSO to be available so said permits can be obtained. That's the hard part, IMO. Getting better, but still not good by a long shot.
If "pro" means yes, and "con" means no, is Congress the opposite of Progress?

'05-Raptor 660
'05-Raptor 350
'05 Banshee
'07 YFZ 450

User avatar
BHenry
Bulletin Board Administrator
Bulletin Board Administrator
Posts: 2730
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2000 3:41 pm
antispam: NO
Please enter the middle number: 7
Location: Surface...err...Valley of the Sun

Post by BHenry » Mon Mar 27, 2006 10:56 am

S_ANDerson72 wrote:They should give you some sort of Tag or Sticker thats clearly marks your Jeep as a towed in when you purchase your permit.
I'll second this suggestion, as it seems to be the easiest to administer, and most fair to those who tow in a street legal vehicle as their OHV, and not their primary vehicle. The fly in in the ointment here is for people who purchase season passes, rather than weekly passes. Do they get a blanket "Towed in Street Legal" vehicle indicator?
I'll relinquish my right to ride when you relinquish your right to breathe
Bryan Henry
KG6OQD

User avatar
Doc
Website Admin
Website Admin
Posts: 494
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2000 9:42 pm

Post by Doc » Mon Mar 27, 2006 11:00 am

L&L Corvairs wrote: I am limiting my comments to the ‘Secondary “Primary” Vehicle Pass” issue and all comments related to “Primary Pass” mean it’s a $90.00 season pass. I see no reason to offer ‘Secondary Vehicle Passes’ to weekend pass purchasers.


Consider this: Sell passes just as is currently done. The buyer gets one “Primary Pass” and can remain anonymous, whether they get a plastic pass or their paper receipt. Those people who want a secondary pass must first obtain a plastic pass (which really isn’t all that hard to do now) and take it to the pass vendor (right now, the ISCO) during reasonable business hours (those hours being adjusted to support visitor/customer service i.e. Weekends/Holidays/Friday Evenings), a copy of the primary vehicle registration and a copy of the secondary vehicle registration. The primary pass is then imprinted with the license plate number of the primary vehicle and a secondary pass, when issued is imprinted with BOTH the primary vehicle license plate and the secondary vehicle license plate number. The imprinting should be by ‘punching’ the number through the plastic, in large enough characters so they can be seen from out side the vehicle when the pass is properly displayed. Secondary vehicle passes should cost in the $20.00 range.

Jason

Read Lloyds suggestion carefully and you will see that his suggestion will not affect the way passes are used if you do not want a second pass tied to your primary pass. Also read that he is restricting his comments to people driving a second street legal vehicle that will NOT be used in the dunes. That is another issue that needs a solution.

User avatar
jhitesma
7th Gear "No Brakes" Member
7th Gear "No Brakes" Member
Posts: 7791
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2000 9:57 pm
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by jhitesma » Mon Mar 27, 2006 11:26 am

The problem is I'm one of those rare people who fall under both sides of this discussion.

Sometimes I tow my Manx out. Others I drive it out. Sometimes I drive my truck, sometimes I drive a borrowed truck from a friend. When I drive out a truck sometimes I tow out my rail and others I tow out my Manx.

On the rare occasions that I do want my Manx and rail out on the same weekend I have a friend drive the Manx out and they're responsible for their own pass.

I also have a girlfriend who works a very unusual schedule so it's very uncommon for her and I to be able to head out together. We usually have to take separate vehicles so she can arrive late or leave early.

So I'm affected by both the issue of towed in street legal vehicles that are used as OHV's AND the issue of a secondary pass since I have someone who dosn't bring any toys in but needs to drive their own vehicle so they can leave on their own schedule.

Here's a radical idea. How about having a company that actually knows how to do this kind of thing and specializes in it manage the passes instead of the local Sheriff who directly benefits from doing a poor job of selling passes while also being in charge of enforcing compliance.

Yeah, I know central parking wasn't doing much better. But they're not the only company in the country that deals with selling parking passes. And as the ICSO has shown ANY group/company entrusted to run this program will screw it up because the BLM does not hold them accountable for results. Unless the BLM actually writes a real contract and puts it out for bid the pass situation will ALWAYS be a problem because the contractors know they can get away with anything they want and not pay any repercusions.

User avatar
LoBuck
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 6786
Joined: Sun Jun 30, 2002 12:48 am
antispam: NO
Please enter the middle number: 7
Location: Yuma, AZ
Contact:

Post by LoBuck » Mon Mar 27, 2006 11:30 am

L&L Corvairs wrote:Going to suggest first that this thread be split. One for discussion of a ‘Secondary “Primary” Vehicle Pass” (for a vehicle that will be driven to the site and NOT used off road) and one for the issues of ‘Towed’ street legal vehicles that are primarily used for off road recreation.
I think the topic can stay as is. The reasoning, to me anyway, is that it doesn't matter if a street licensed vehicle is towed or driven in. Having a Secondary permit for it will allow it to be driven on or off road, your choice and convenience.

The Primary and Secondary permit must correspond to each other in some way. I'm with Jason in that permits should not and do not need to be associated with any specific vehicle. The primary and secondary permits do need to be associated with each other though. This could be done with a coordinated alpha-numeric ID printed or written on both permits. RFID would make the whole process very simplistic. Lets hope ICSO can get it done next season. :wink: Either way, printed, written, or RFID, validation by an LEO would be possible.

We maybe getting a bit ahead trying to put a price on a secondary permit at this point. It is safe to say that it at least needs to be lower than 1/2 the price of an annual permit. Let's get the probablity of having a secondary permit settled first.

My recommendation would be for a secondary permit to be available only with the purchase of an annual permit for a full season trial to see how it works. After that, it could be decided whether to scrap the secondary all together, adjust it for improvement, add purchases for weekly permits, or a combination of the last two.
My1stJeep wrote:Only problem with the secondary pass being in the $20 range is why so much? Why should I who brings in one toy (my Jeep on a trailer) behind my motor home have to pay and extra $20 to recreate whle the guy with a sand rail or two plus 4-8 quads and a golf cart not have to pay any extra?
This is the reason I said above that it doesn't matter if a street licensed vehicle is towed or driven in. Having a Secondary permit for it will allow it to be driven on or off road, your choice and convenience. If you choose to drive your towed in Jeep/Manx/etc only in the sand, keeping it completely off any road, you can do so without a permit. Just like anyone else that has a rail or quad.

However, if you want to be able to drive that towed in street licensed vehicle on any road, in and out of the ISDRA, then you could buy a secondary permit and not worry about it.

As far as removing the license plate, I don't believe that is an option. Once a vehicle is (currently) licensed, to run it without a plate would be a violation. Even with a green sticker or out of state permit, it would need to be registered.

Great discussion. Keep the ideas coming. :D
Glenn Montgomery - KE7BTP
'79 CJ5
http://www.YumaDuners.com - LoBuck's Web Page
DAC ISDRA Sub Group Member - AZ OHV Rep BLM ISDRA DSG webpage

Jerry Seaver
ASA Co-Founder • Past President
ASA Co-Founder • Past President
Posts: 962
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2000 4:48 pm
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: USA

Post by Jerry Seaver » Mon Mar 27, 2006 11:43 am

Why not do a second pass like the infamous Adventure pass. When you buy one for $ 30 you can get a second for $5.00.....so why not buy a primary for $ 90 get a second for $ 10 or what ever......You have to buy the primary to get the second one..........
The reason this was thrown out in the past is it created a second permit that could be used and probably would be used by another visitor or user of the ISDRA. If you can get a second permit and give it to your brother who is using a truck and trailer to enter the ISDRA (something other than a motorhome) then the people enforcing compliance have no way of knowing if they are a secondary vehicle or not if they unhook from their trailer. The way the adventure pass is used is there is normally gated entries.

L&L Corvair's idea has some of the similar problems and it would depend on there being people available at the entrances to issue the passes unless they bought it when purchasing their season pass. Worth submitting for consideration.

My1stJeep, brings up a flaw in my idea of taking off a street legal plate to solve the problem of it being mistaken for a primary Vechicle. He brings up buying a Non-resident sticker to get by the registration requirement and this would work but isn't fair to have to spend that extra money. Somebodys else's idea of getting something at the entrance to state a towed vehicle was towed in would work if there were people at the entrances to issue something when entering.

What will help us to come up with something workable is to know how the fee collection is going to be done next season. Some good ideas here and maybe it will motivate the BLM and ICSO to come up with something.

Jason, I'm looking for the written definition of a Primary Vehicle and will post here when I find it. I've seen it, and it doesn't say anything about being street legal as I remember it. The way it reads, as I remember is a Primary Vehicle is any vehicle used to enter the ISDRA. I had a question at the beginning of the season about whether it would have to be street legal or not. I asked the BLM and they said no it didn't have to be street legal. So if you were camping on private land and entered the ISDRA in your buggy or quad, technically you would need a permit. I guess the only way this could be enforced is if they actually saw you enter the ISDRA from your campsite. I can think of all kinds of problems with trying to enforce this.

User avatar
My1stJeep
3rd Gear Member
3rd Gear Member
Posts: 73
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2006 2:49 pm
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: Surprise, AZ

Post by My1stJeep » Mon Mar 27, 2006 12:34 pm

LoBuck,

You are correct, it gives me the opportunity if I want to drive into Yuma to get some things and return using my Jeep. The old definition about a primary vehicle did not address this. The definition does.

Since I primarily only come down for 3 days at a time, I can go a whole season without leaving the dunes during my weekend so having that second pass is not something I am interested in. Second when crossing over to Gordon's Well I can get most of what I forgot at the little store. In the rare occasion I have to run into Yuma I can cross that bridge when it happens. I don't think it matters that I am using my Jeep to run into town and require the second pass as it should be based on intended use in the dunes, it should not matter what happens outside of the dunes.

That said I could take the motorhome in if I don't want to pay for a second pass, we coudl actually come up with an idea that would not require the second pass for the reason stated above, or determine it not worth going into town.

What if by chance are the odds that a street legal rail or manx would run in to town and upon return be viewed as a "primary" vehicle? Most likely they would not, again a double standard that my Jeep is automatically deemed primary by looks. With my whip being 8' and it mounted 3.5' off the ground, how many vehicles run down the street with a whip at 11.5'?

I think the suggestion about putting it up to a bid to other companies or orgs that could do this is a GREAT idea, then you could hire the ICSO for enforcement only.
Last edited by My1stJeep on Mon Mar 27, 2006 12:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.

L&L Corvairs
ASA Board Member
ASA Board Member
Posts: 1631
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2002 6:29 pm
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: Ontario, Calif.

Post by L&L Corvairs » Mon Mar 27, 2006 12:36 pm

One thing that is not defined is the intent of Fee Tax in terms of who has actual ownership of the pass. This needs to be defined.

And here’s the basic example. I buy (2) passes each year. I let friends and family borrow and use them when I am not in the ISDRA. Does this violate the intent of the Tax? When a pass shows up at the ISDRA, was the intent to have the original purchaser be with it? If not, then I can easily agree with Glen’s suggestion. We simply tie the Primary Pass and the Secondary Pass to each other. Again, easy to do with punched out numbers while we wait for the RFID technology to be perfected. Adding a requirement that the Primary Pass must be in a vehicle in the ISDRA every time the secondary pass is there. This would likely solve Jason’s problem as well.

The above aside, I will argue that the INTENT of the Fee Tax was to charge every person that recreates out there. The $$$ collected is to provide services for the TOTAL yearly visitor ship. If we have 1,000,000 yearly visitors, yet only 300,000 of them buy passes, because the other 700,000 are using the passes when the first 300,00 are not there, then we have what is known as a budget shortfall. We have more visitor USAGE then we collect $$ for. That’s why it should be tied to the vehicle.
:wink:
L&L
It is not ours to decide the times in which we live.
It is only ours to decide what to do with the time given us.

Make the most of your time.

User avatar
jhitesma
7th Gear "No Brakes" Member
7th Gear "No Brakes" Member
Posts: 7791
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2000 9:57 pm
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by jhitesma » Mon Mar 27, 2006 12:49 pm

Jerry Seaver wrote: Jason, I'm looking for the written definition of a Primary Vehicle and will post here when I find it. I've seen it, and it doesn't say anything about being street legal as I remember it. The way it reads, as I remember is a Primary Vehicle is any vehicle used to enter the ISDRA. I had a question at the beginning of the season about whether it would have to be street legal or not. I asked the BLM and they said no it didn't have to be street legal. So if you were camping on private land and entered the ISDRA in your buggy or quad, technically you would need a permit. I guess the only way this could be enforced is if they actually saw you enter the ISDRA from your campsite. I can think of all kinds of problems with trying to enforce this.
Thanks Jerry. I know I've seen it...but never in a way that "codifies" it. By which I mean written as law rather than just as a rule of thumb on a flyer or the back of a pass.

I seem to recall that it may be defined in the latest law Imperial County passed to help them enforce the passes.

As for the mention of street legal or not. I'm fairly sure that until this year the definition of "Primary Vehicle" was accepted as "one which is driven to the ISDRA" but that with the new law IC passed it became "One which is driven on a street".

This is a big difference since under the definition of "one which is driven to the location" driving my Manx from Midway to Buttercup is 100% legal (And is apparently what was done in a Jeep to start this discussion.) But under the "driven on a street" definition suddenly that's not OK anymore.

I know this was discussed previously because of the issue of the washroad status. But the road from Midway to Buttercup is also questionable. Is that simply a BLM access road or is it an actual roadway which can only be used by street legal vehicles? And of course there's the continuing issue of the bridge of I-8 and the reasons for it not being an issue never came true due to the ICSO dropping the ball so now it IS an issue.

User avatar
My1stJeep
3rd Gear Member
3rd Gear Member
Posts: 73
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2006 2:49 pm
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: Surprise, AZ

Post by My1stJeep » Mon Mar 27, 2006 1:23 pm

L&L,

That is fine to tie it to a vehicle, if it applies to everyone. Currently it does not.

I totally agree, using yoru example, it is not fair to have the 300,000 pay for the 1 million users. Using the same logic is it fair for one type of vehicle to recreate there that is being forced to pay double? Neither is fair. Thus why in my original comments the only way to secure the secondary pass was during the hours of opperation that the trailer was open and an officer or the issuer of the pass could see first hand that the vehicle was trailered in. If I choose to show up in the middle of the night, that is great, but then be ready to pay for a second pass or to drive the motor home and Jeep still in tow back up to be verified.

I also agree with the suggestions that the passes have to be tied together.

Just talked with a buddy of mine who is a technology geek, I was wondering what the problem is with the technology you spoke of? Seems pretty basic to me, in fact this type of pass reading is done in many places currently today. Just curious.

Also, I totally agree that buying passes, then allowing others to use them to enter the dunes as guests or on weekends you are not there is wrong. I am not advocating that in the least, I just want some parity where we are ALL paying our equal dues.

User avatar
LoBuck
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 6786
Joined: Sun Jun 30, 2002 12:48 am
antispam: NO
Please enter the middle number: 7
Location: Yuma, AZ
Contact:

Post by LoBuck » Mon Mar 27, 2006 1:51 pm

jhitesma wrote:I know this was discussed previously because of the issue of the washroad status. But the road from Midway to Buttercup is also questionable. Is that simply a BLM access road or is it an actual roadway which can only be used by street legal vehicles? And of course there's the continuing issue of the bridge of I-8 and the reasons for it not being an issue never came true due to the ICSO dropping the ball so now it IS an issue.
Here is what I have been told by BLM & ICSO:

The Wash Road, Grey's Well Road (Buttercup-Midway-Grey's Well), Gecko Road, and Roadrunner are all considered to be "Roads" in this context. Once a towed in street licensed vehicle being used for exclusive off road use drives on any these it becomes a "primary vehicle".

As a side note. The status of these roads as "Roads" also applies to underaged drivers driving street licensed vehicles. They can not drive on them legally. I checked when my 14 year old (now 17 year old) son started driving the Jeep at the ISDRA.

The reason that the bridge is exempt is that is it is exempt for all OHV's.
Last edited by LoBuck on Mon Mar 27, 2006 2:01 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Glenn Montgomery - KE7BTP
'79 CJ5
http://www.YumaDuners.com - LoBuck's Web Page
DAC ISDRA Sub Group Member - AZ OHV Rep BLM ISDRA DSG webpage

User avatar
LoBuck
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 6786
Joined: Sun Jun 30, 2002 12:48 am
antispam: NO
Please enter the middle number: 7
Location: Yuma, AZ
Contact:

Post by LoBuck » Mon Mar 27, 2006 2:00 pm

My1stJeep wrote:Just talked with a buddy of mine who is a technology geek, I was wondering what the problem is with the technology you spoke of? Seems pretty basic to me, in fact this type of pass reading is done in many places currently today. Just curious.
The technology itself is not the problem. The ICSO was not able to get the RFID program completed this season for a number of reasons. IMO, it was lack of organization as well as improper planning. In reality, with the timeline the ICSO had to gear up it was just too much, too fast to make it work. The RFID program has a lot of potential.
Glenn Montgomery - KE7BTP
'79 CJ5
http://www.YumaDuners.com - LoBuck's Web Page
DAC ISDRA Sub Group Member - AZ OHV Rep BLM ISDRA DSG webpage

User avatar
jhitesma
7th Gear "No Brakes" Member
7th Gear "No Brakes" Member
Posts: 7791
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2000 9:57 pm
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by jhitesma » Mon Mar 27, 2006 2:13 pm

(I really shouldn't be dealing with this today....I've got too much work waiting on me...but it is Monday and this is bugging me...)

After a phone call from a TRT member a few minutes ago I was told that the BLM used their all purpose answer for the question "Where is the definition of primary vehicle" (See my signature for clarification.)

So as usual the BLM's answer raised more questions than it answered. I suspect there's a supplementary rule that defines "primary vehicle" but it seems even the BLM has lost track of it.

What I did find was the ICSO's website http://www.imperialsanddunes.org has this to say (with no cite as to where it comes from):
*Primary vehicle is a registered street legal motorized vehicle that is driven into the Imperial Sand Dunes Recreational Area: i.e. motor homes, trucks, SUVs, passenger cars. A street legal vehicle that is towed or trailered to the dunes is exempt. This vehicle must remain off all roadways and utilize OHV authorized areas and routes only. If this vehicle is then utilized for travel on any of the non OHV authorized areas and routes; it will be considered as a primary vehicle and will require a permit.
I've been trying to find the text of the new ordinance that IC passed to allow them to enforce this. But haven't had any luck. I did however find a thread from when the ICSO's involvement was first announced where almost all of these issues were forseen by recreationalists and told they would not be issues by the BLM/ICSO:

http://www.americansandassociation.org/ ... perial+law

It's good reading for anyone involved in this discussion who wants some perspective as to how we got here.

FWIW - if this is defined in a supplementary rule then "The rules shall be posted near and/or within the lands, sites or facilities affected;". A requirement of supplementary rules (which the BLM relies on for almost everything at the ISDRA) which has never been fuffiled.

User avatar
My1stJeep
3rd Gear Member
3rd Gear Member
Posts: 73
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2006 2:49 pm
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: Surprise, AZ

Post by My1stJeep » Mon Mar 27, 2006 2:29 pm

The defintion posted that says the towed vehicle is exempt is what we have been living with for years, funny you find that on the website of the ICSO. As I spoke with the ICSO last week, and they gave me a different definition, I was told it was any street legal vehicle. No exceptions.

The defitinion posted is what I have heard the BLM personal tell me at every land use meeting.

Maybe they need the sheriff to enforce the rules and a different company to sell the passes, that way the ICSO only has to focus on one thing.

L&L Corvairs
ASA Board Member
ASA Board Member
Posts: 1631
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2002 6:29 pm
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: Ontario, Calif.

Post by L&L Corvairs » Mon Mar 27, 2006 2:49 pm

My1StJeep:

I understand your frustration and feelings. At the start of my comments, I was clear that what I was addressing was related to the Secondary Vehicle pass for those vehicles that are not used in the sand. The reason I asked for the separate thread is that the discussion related to towed in street legal vehicles really is about the use of street legal vehicles in the sand, regardless of how they get there. I still consider it two separate issues.

So, this comment is related to street legal vehicles that are towed in.

Is it fair that you have to ‘pay double’? No. Is it fair that the trouble making punks that are there to party only, show up in street legal vehicles, let the air out of their tires, put a flag on the bumper, pack the back with wood and booze, and proceed to drive out and trash the place, cause crime and mayhem, contribute to the closure of Comp Hill, then go home pay NOTHING? No.

I try and look at things from the LEO/enforcement perspective. If I see a street legal vehicle out there on a road, without paddles on, how the heck am I supposed to know if it’s a ‘primary’ vehicle or not, even if it does have a flag? Additionally, are we supposed to let the towed in street legal vehicle in and out privileges for free?

What it gets down to is really simple. If I let your Jeep or Manx off the hook, then I have to let the vehicle full of trouble as described above off as well, because I have to enforce equally, or as equal as possible, otherwise, when punky boy/girl above gets to court, they complain that the Jeeps and Manxes (what’s the plural of Manx?) don’t have to pay, why should we?

It’s very disturbing to be down at Olds and see all those street legal vehicles there, with the party going hard, and no passes, when it’s clear that most of them are in fact the ‘Primary’ vehicle.
L&L
It is not ours to decide the times in which we live.
It is only ours to decide what to do with the time given us.

Make the most of your time.

L&L Corvairs
ASA Board Member
ASA Board Member
Posts: 1631
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2002 6:29 pm
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: Ontario, Calif.

Post by L&L Corvairs » Mon Mar 27, 2006 3:03 pm

To continue. I don’t see a solution for the towed in vehicle that works and is fair to ‘everyone’, with the current constraints. Those constraints are:

1. No entry gates.
2. We do not tie the pass to the vehicle license/registration.


Any other solutions are either not fair to people like My1stJeeps or are not fair to everyone else.
One thing those who have street legal toys should keep in mind. From the ‘other side’ you get an extra privilege. You can drive your toy in the sand AND on the road. For the same price as your registration. Is that completely fair to those of us who have to pay green stricter fees, and trailer registrations? One could argue, no it isn’t.

So is asking you to pony up a few extra $$$ for that secondary pass really out of line?
L&L
It is not ours to decide the times in which we live.
It is only ours to decide what to do with the time given us.

Make the most of your time.

User avatar
jhitesma
7th Gear "No Brakes" Member
7th Gear "No Brakes" Member
Posts: 7791
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2000 9:57 pm
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by jhitesma » Mon Mar 27, 2006 3:10 pm

L&L Corvairs wrote: One thing those who have street legal toys should keep in mind. From the ‘other side’ you get an extra privilege. You can drive your toy in the sand AND on the road. For the same price as your registration. Is that completely fair to those of us who have to pay green stricter fees, and trailer registrations? One could argue, no it isn’t.
You're thinking is CA centric. In AZ our trailer registrations are for life as are registrations for OHV's. So really those of us with street legal toys are already paying more for the privilege. (not to mention that street registrations and insurance are already more expensive.)
So is asking you to pony up a few extra $$$ for that secondary pass really out of line?
I hardly consider $90 to be "a few extra" but yes. It is out of line unless you're also going to require a separate pass for each towed in vehicle be it street legal or not.

As for your post above Lloyd...I'm not sure where you're coming from at all. Those trucks you're talking about are already required to have passes. If they don't that's just a sign of the ICSO not doing their job and all the secondary passes in the world won't do anything to change it.

I'm curious though how they're getting all those primary vehicles in without buying passes. Unless the entry/exit checkpoints at Glamis are a LOT less enforced than the ones in the south dunes were this year. From what I saw in the south dunes checkpoints (which I may add we were promised would not be used) were staffed WAY more often than in the past. They weren't staffed adequately, at the proper times, or with personal who knew what they were doing or what the laws/rules were...but they were very effective at making sure no one went in without a pass if nothing else. I will give them that.

Unless those trucks you're seeing were towed in they're a red herring in this discussion and don't relate to street legal vehicles that were towed in or even a secondary pass if they don't already have a pass.

User avatar
LoBuck
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 6786
Joined: Sun Jun 30, 2002 12:48 am
antispam: NO
Please enter the middle number: 7
Location: Yuma, AZ
Contact:

Post by LoBuck » Mon Mar 27, 2006 4:00 pm

jhitesma wrote:I've been trying to find the text of the new ordinance that IC passed to allow them to enforce this. But haven't had any luck.
I just uploaded it to the Documents Section on http://www.isdratrt.org.

2 page PDF
Imperial County Ordinance Vehicles on Lands of Another

I also uploaded the Agreement between BLM and ICSO for Fee Collection. 29 page PDF
Statement of Joint Objectives Fee Collections Final
Glenn Montgomery - KE7BTP
'79 CJ5
http://www.YumaDuners.com - LoBuck's Web Page
DAC ISDRA Sub Group Member - AZ OHV Rep BLM ISDRA DSG webpage

User avatar
My1stJeep
3rd Gear Member
3rd Gear Member
Posts: 73
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2006 2:49 pm
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: Surprise, AZ

Post by My1stJeep » Mon Mar 27, 2006 4:22 pm

L&L Corvairs wrote:One thing those who have street legal toys should keep in mind. From the ‘other side’ you get an extra privilege. You can drive your toy in the sand AND on the road. For the same price as your registration. Is that completely fair to those of us who have to pay green stricter fees, and trailer registrations? One could argue, no it isn’t.

So is asking you to pony up a few extra $$$ for that secondary pass really out of line?
Ok, to note I towed my Jeep in on a trailer as do all the guys I wheel with, so we do pay trailer reg fees.

If you want to compare registation fees for vehicles, no problem. How much is it to register a green sticker vs my fees for my street legal? So when you ask me to poiny up a few extra dollars, we are both paying registration fees for our vehicles (license plates for me, green sticker for you) and now for a yearly pass I have to pay another $90 for my secondary vehicle? Cause right now that is what I would have to pay.

All the suggestions are for a lesser amount, but why should I pay more than anyone else to use the same dunes?

Maybe I am missing the point to your thread, but is sounds like you think it is ok for me to pay even more then everone else to enjoy the same fun?

L&L Corvairs
ASA Board Member
ASA Board Member
Posts: 1631
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2002 6:29 pm
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: Ontario, Calif.

Post by L&L Corvairs » Mon Mar 27, 2006 4:43 pm

LOL Jason,
You’re entirely too ‘South Dunes centric’.

First off, I never said trucks. I said street legal vehicles. And I meant it. I’ve seen all types at Olds, from Honda Civics to 4 X 4’s with huge lifts on them. Once they are out there, it would be difficult to tell how they got into the ISDRA without profiling the occupants. There are at least (4) places anyone can pull off of 78 and go into the sand. Gecko Road at Sweet Marie’s (before the Ranger Station), Osborne Lookout, Garbage Flats and the Glamis Beach Store. None of which have any kind of staffed check point. Remember, the constraints we have here is no gates and no fences and, no check points.

I won’t go into the pluses/minuses of living in AZ vs CA. The point is that anyone with a registered toy like a Jeep or Manx has the privilege of driving on the Highway in AZ AND California. Can’t do that with a quad. Unless AZ lets registered quad riders ride on I-8. While I certainly have no problem considering your POV, you can’t acknowledge there is validity in others?

Really, this:
how the heck am I supposed to know if it’s a ‘primary’ vehicle or not, even if it does have a flag? Additionally, are we supposed to let the towed in street legal vehicle in and out privileges for free?
Deserves a reasonable answer.

I’m not trying to be mean. You guys really don’t see it? You pay registration for your street legal vehicle to drive ON THE STREET. That’s where your $$$ go for. So, YES. You should pay additional to play OFF ROAD. That’s where THOSE $$ should go to.

We both have to pay the $90.00 to drive our rig out there. Why should YOU get to play off road for free in your toy? Is that fair to me? I'm not saying $90.00 is fair to you, either, but there's a middle ground here somewhere, and $20 is about what my green sticker costs me per year.
L&L
It is not ours to decide the times in which we live.
It is only ours to decide what to do with the time given us.

Make the most of your time.

azsandrider
7th Gear "No Brakes" Member
7th Gear "No Brakes" Member
Posts: 2864
Joined: Fri Jan 19, 2001 2:28 pm
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: Mesa, Az.

Post by azsandrider » Tue Mar 28, 2006 2:43 am

I still think having an RV pass and one vehicle pass, the same basic design and colors, with the same serial numbers, but one having a large "RV" on it and the other having a large "VEH" on it would be easy to administer and enforce.

ALL RVs would have to display the "RV" pass, whether they were a motorhome or a trailer. The "VEH" pass would be for the tow vehicle, for trailers, and for a secondary vehicle of you have a motorhome.

This would actually help enforcement of passes as a trailer would have one displayed even if the tow vehicle is not present at camp. A lot of people drive their pickups around, and if the pickup is gone from camp when the pass enforcement team drives by, they have no way of knowing the trailer has a pass.

When I go to the dunes and set up camp, my motorhome doesn't move anymore than the guy with the 5th wheel parked next to me! But he has unrestrained road access into the ISDRA, to go to town or to the hill by road, while I do not. So if I want to bring a Jeep or second vehicle to drive the exact same places the guy with the pickup does, I HAVE TO PAY ANOTHER $90 for the season????

I think the definitions changed in an attempt to have people buy more passes, as a lot of people are bringing a second vehicle.

To avoid abuse, simply require the "RV" pass and the "VEH" pass to have the same registered owners. If the LEOs are suspicious of pass abuse, they could check for ownership. BUT, most visitors to the dunes are basically honest and won't abuse the passes any more than we have now.

Right now, there are so many pass abuse scams going on...

There are OHV shops that buy a yearly pass and loan them out to their good customers when the shop owner is not using it to go to the dunes.T here are people who "time share" a pass, only paying $30 each, as they go to the dunes on opposite weekends. There are plenty of people who loan their passes to friends when they are not using it. There are people who have one pass and bring in multiple RV trailers in with it.

And how about the multitude of people who go to the dunes on off weekends, or to the more remote areas to camp, to avoid buying a pass. Then there are the people who leave Saturday night to avoid buying a pass.

There are so many ways to bypass buying a pass already, and nothing is being done to stop it, that worrying about a secondary pass being abused is ridiculous!

SO don't talk to me about a possible abuse situations providing secondary pass, until ALL the other ways to abuse the current pass system are addressed.

Also, think about the increased sale of yearly passes if a secondary pass was offered with it. Yearly passes are more easily identified and easier to check than paper receipts.



Maybe I should start a thread so people can post pass abuse scams....Might be eye opening...Or put up a poll to see how many people admit to "borrowing" a pass or just not buying a pass.


Oh, by the way.....I have two yearly passes that I'm done using....anyone want them for a small fee......

:shock: :D :D :P
(The above statement is my own opinion and not that of the ASA's.)

T. Wight
Mesa, AZ.
ASA Supporting Member
ASA Volunteer

Is your spouse an ASA member??? Numbers count!!

User avatar
My1stJeep
3rd Gear Member
3rd Gear Member
Posts: 73
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2006 2:49 pm
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: Surprise, AZ

Post by My1stJeep » Tue Mar 28, 2006 8:57 am

azsandrider I agree with your comments a pass system like that would be a great idea.

L&L
I do not totally disagree with you, about those not paying. But those of us that are should not get charged anymore than you do. We both pay registration, mine just happens to cost more cause I can drive on the street, so that is equal. We both tow our set ups in and pay the $90 yearly, so again equal. However now I have to pay another fee, even if it is $20, why should I pay $110 when you paid $90?

The green sticker is not just to play at the dunes, that is a mandatory registration fee to use your OHV anywhere where OHV's are allowed, it is a registration just like license plates are registration to ride on the road. The logic that I should pay an additional $20 does not fly.

Some sort of pass system must be worked out that allows for this.

Example, a guy with a trailer and struck set up comes in, rolls his rail out of a toy hauler. Another person drives in a motorhome with a rail in tow. A third comes in a motor home with a Jeep in tow (on a trailer). I would say it is a pretty even split of people with truck and toy haulers as there is with motor homes and trailers.

With the current set up, the guy with the truck and toy hauler can disconnect, take off toy Yuma to get parts, get more gas, get supp0lies or whate ever and use the single pass they bought to re-enter the park. The person with the motor home and rail would have to take the motor home in to town, not nearly as easy. They guy with the motor home and Jeep can also take the motor home, not as easy. However (again still trying to play by the same rules here) if all three want to cross over the bridge to Gordon's Wells, the guy can take his truck, the guy can tke his rail, but the Jeep has to buy a second pass.

A secondary pass system of some sort needs to be put in place. One that says it is the primary/secondary or RV/MV or???? is all good. I do think they need to be tied together. Since they are supposed to move to a computer system, I hope they are putting together one that is adequate, it should be no problem when I come to pay and go the trailer and they can clearly see the Jeep in tow to give me the second pass, link the two together in there computer system and it can be checked by the same technology as they drive by. For ease I think the pass should include my license plate number and last name incase they manually check, and their cimputer system should have that listed as well when they check so they can catch people trying to share a pass.

Since they are going to have a drive by system in place where they can check the tag as they go by your vehicle it should be much easier to catch people sitting at the hills with no pass, i.e. those little Honda Civics, street trucks, and yes even Jeeps sitting there should have the secondary pass that is linked up to the system. Two things will come of this, an in flow of money from tickets from violators and additional passes being bought so they won't get caught.

Just a side note from years past. One of the guys in our groups had quads and his Jeep. They did not fit in one trailer, so he towed the Jeep behind one tow rig and the 5th wheel behind another. When I came out we towed a tent trailer behind my wife's Cherokee and I drove my Wrangler in. In both cases, since we drove in two primary vehicles we both paid for two passes. I know this may not be the norm, but we have followed the rules and do pay what is fair and required, it is just not fair to require one group of people to pay extra.

I will never agree that someone should pay more than anyone else to use the same recreation area.

L&L Corvairs
ASA Board Member
ASA Board Member
Posts: 1631
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2002 6:29 pm
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: Ontario, Calif.

Post by L&L Corvairs » Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:18 am

Chris,

( Just a note:
Hope, you understand that all this is friendly debate/discussion. There’s nothing personal here and I don’t dislike or am ticked at the duel purpose vehicles. I sincerely commend you for playing by the rules)(I’m also not picking on AZ, or AZ residents. Am simply discussing the facts, thank you, Mam)

This is where we disagree:
We both pay registration, mine just happens to cost more cause I can drive on the street, so that is equal.
Your position (correct me if I’m wrong) is that when you pay your street legal registration you are buying both on and off road privileges.

I disagree. (and we’ll probably have to agree to disagree). The money paid for registering street legal vehicles is used primarily to pay for the cost of roads, freeways etc., whether it is maintenance, new construction or whatever. Very little, if any, is used to promote, maintain, enhance etc OHV activities. Not a dime of your street legal registration goes to the ISDRA. NONE, EVER, NO MONEY from AZ registrations, of any kind, EVER goes to the ISDRA or any OHV place in CA.. Those $$$ stay in AZ. As they should. I consider your OHV use an added privilege, a bonus, and an even bigger one for the AZ resident, as they get to play in CA without any AZ state funding. (And I’m talking about street legal vehicles here, not OHV toys with red stickers, which are still paid to CA)The same is true, of course, for the CA residents who recreate in AZ. They too, place a demand on the State that they don’t pay for. Neither is fair. However, I would argue that there are far more OHV AZ people recreating at the ISDRA alone then OHV CA residents recreating in the entire state of AZ. It’s not equal. (And, FWIW, I would have no problem paying a fee to AZ should I wish to play there with my OHV toys, street legal or otherwise :wink: )

Looking at the ISDRA, we have a large visitor ship, which places a demand, or cost on the place. Every time street legal vehicles recreate out there, unless they are paying a permit fee, they add to the cost and pay none of it. At least some of the California Green Sticker fees and gas taxes do reach the ISDRA. The red sticker is an acknowledegment of the impact that non-Ca residents have on CA OHV areas.

On the other hand, I don’t think anyone should have to pay $90.00 for a second vehicle pass, regardless of whether they use it in the sand or not. However, I also don’t think that second vehicle pass should be free, and until someone gives a good, solid, defendable answer to this:
If I see a street legal vehicle out there on a road, without paddles on, how the heck am I supposed to know if it’s a ‘primary’ vehicle or not, even if it does have a flag?
I would have to consider your street legal vehicle to be either a primary or secondary vehicle, regardless of where it is in the ISDRA. As for the $20….I pulled that out of my…uh..wel :lol: :wink: l..thin air. I don’t think it should be much more then $20, but not less then 10. It should be based on the cost to provide such a pass + profit.
L&L
It is not ours to decide the times in which we live.
It is only ours to decide what to do with the time given us.

Make the most of your time.

L&L Corvairs
ASA Board Member
ASA Board Member
Posts: 1631
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2002 6:29 pm
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: Ontario, Calif.

Post by L&L Corvairs » Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:43 am

Getting back to designing a secondary pass system, I was really hoping that Glen or Jerry would comment on this:
L&L Corvairs wrote:One thing that is not defined is the intent of Fee Tax in terms of who has actual ownership of the pass. This needs to be defined.

And here’s the basic example. I buy (2) passes each year. I let friends and family borrow and use them when I am not in the ISDRA. Does this violate the intent of the Tax? When a pass shows up at the ISDRA, was the intent to have the original purchaser be with it?

.......I will argue that the INTENT of the Fee Tax was to charge every person that recreates out there. The $$$ collected is to provide services for the TOTAL yearly visitor ship. If we have 1,000,000 yearly visitors, yet only 300,000 of them buy passes, because the other 700,000 are using the passes when the first 300,00 are not there, then we have what is known as a budget shortfall. We have more visitor USAGE then we collect $$ for.
:wink:
This is key to determinig if we should promote tieing the pass to a vehicle.
L&L
It is not ours to decide the times in which we live.
It is only ours to decide what to do with the time given us.

Make the most of your time.

User avatar
My1stJeep
3rd Gear Member
3rd Gear Member
Posts: 73
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2006 2:49 pm
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: Surprise, AZ

Post by My1stJeep » Tue Mar 28, 2006 12:01 pm

L&L,

No offense taken, I think having all sides discussed is a huge bonus. If we all agreed all the time life would be very boring.

I can appreciate you point of view, even if I disagree. All is good, I just don't want this issue to die out and have nothing done so next year I have to pay double again.

I think there have been alot of good suggestions, and hopefully one of them will rise to the top and be in place in time.

User avatar
LoBuck
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 6786
Joined: Sun Jun 30, 2002 12:48 am
antispam: NO
Please enter the middle number: 7
Location: Yuma, AZ
Contact:

Post by LoBuck » Tue Mar 28, 2006 3:16 pm

L&L Corvairs wrote:Getting back to designing a secondary pass system, I was really hoping that Glen or Jerry would comment on this:
L&L Corvairs wrote:One thing that is not defined is the intent of Fee Tax in terms of who has actual ownership of the pass. This needs to be defined.

And here’s the basic example. I buy (2) passes each year. I let friends and family borrow and use them when I am not in the ISDRA. Does this violate the intent of the Tax? When a pass shows up at the ISDRA, was the intent to have the original purchaser be with it?

.......I will argue that the INTENT of the Fee Tax was to charge every person that recreates out there. The $$$ collected is to provide services for the TOTAL yearly visitor ship. If we have 1,000,000 yearly visitors, yet only 300,000 of them buy passes, because the other 700,000 are using the passes when the first 300,00 are not there, then we have what is known as a budget shortfall. We have more visitor USAGE then we collect $$ for.
:wink:
This is key to determinig if we should promote tieing the pass to a vehicle.
I would agree that the INTENT of the permit was for each visitor to the ISDRA to purchase either a weekly or annual permit to recreate there. Keeping in mind that a "visitor" is commonly understood to be an individual or family that recreates at the ISDRA on a single or multple occassions. BLM research and the ISDRA TRT Survey indicate that a "visitor" equals an average of about 3 people per visit

If a single "visitor" is purchasing a permit and sharing it with multiple "visitors", that will have a negative effect not only on the INTENT of the permit, but also the accumumlated (and budgeted) revenue to operate the ISDRA.

Time for a disclaimer of sorts. For the purpose of this discussion, the topic of whether the permit and its revenue should exist or relied upon to fund the ISDRA should not included. That really is a separate discussion.
Glenn Montgomery - KE7BTP
'79 CJ5
http://www.YumaDuners.com - LoBuck's Web Page
DAC ISDRA Sub Group Member - AZ OHV Rep BLM ISDRA DSG webpage

User avatar
jhitesma
7th Gear "No Brakes" Member
7th Gear "No Brakes" Member
Posts: 7791
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2000 9:57 pm
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by jhitesma » Tue Mar 28, 2006 3:17 pm

Lloyd you're fogetting. The ISDRA is FEDERAL land not STATE land.

If the BLM happens to get some money from the state great. But they NEVER should rely on it. It's not the states position to fund the feds operations just because they happen to fall in the boundaries of that state.

The problem is too many BLM people got depended on state grants as a way of funding instead of seeking the proper congressional funding.

And now we all know how little of that money actually goes to the ISDRA.

To use the state fees as justification for charging out of state or street legal users more is a major red herring.

AZ has OHV registration as well....but none of that money goes to CA. By what you're saying anyone from out of state should have to pay extra to visit federal lands in CA. I can't even begin to describe how wrong that is.

We're looking to fix a problem here. We shouldn't limit ourselves to thinking within the current mindset to solve it. We need to think bigger and solve the problems at their roots rather than hack at the leaves.

Grants should NEVER be relied upon as a source of funding. Whether they be state or federal.

The BLM needs to stand up fight for congressional funding to operate. Period. Anything above and beyond that is great...but should NEVER be relied upon.

But we're getting way off track now.

User avatar
LoBuck
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 6786
Joined: Sun Jun 30, 2002 12:48 am
antispam: NO
Please enter the middle number: 7
Location: Yuma, AZ
Contact:

Post by LoBuck » Tue Mar 28, 2006 3:30 pm

L&L Corvairs wrote:.... Not a dime of your street legal registration goes to the ISDRA. NONE, EVER, NO MONEY from AZ registrations, of any kind, EVER goes to the ISDRA or any OHV place in CA.. Those $$$ stay in AZ. As they should. I consider your OHV use an added privilege, a bonus, and an even bigger one for the AZ resident, as they get to play in CA without any AZ state funding. (And I’m talking about street legal vehicles here, not OHV toys with red stickers, which are still paid to CA) ....
At the risk of furthering the AZ - CA thing....

One thing that I'm seeing ( not seeing? ) here is that the ISDRA is Federal Public Land that is located in California. Because it is, California residents are dictated to follow California's registration laws for residents. This requires them to have a Red or Green Sticker.

Arizona residents fund the ISDRA through Federal taxes, the ISDRA permit, and probably to some very small degree State taxes that are forwarded to the Feds by the State.
Glenn Montgomery - KE7BTP
'79 CJ5
http://www.YumaDuners.com - LoBuck's Web Page
DAC ISDRA Sub Group Member - AZ OHV Rep BLM ISDRA DSG webpage

Jerry Seaver
ASA Co-Founder • Past President
ASA Co-Founder • Past President
Posts: 962
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2000 4:48 pm
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: USA

Post by Jerry Seaver » Tue Mar 28, 2006 5:41 pm

I've got the definition of a Primary Vehicle that is in the Regs and it is a good example of why as Jason Hitesman has been saying, he wants to see it in writing.
It says, "Primary vehicle is a registered street legal motorized vehicle that is driven into the Imperial Sand Dunes Recreational Area: i.e. motor homes, trucks, SUVs, passenger cars. A street legal vehicle that is towed or trailered to the dunes is exempt. This vehicle must remain off all roadways and utilize OHV authorized areas and routes only. If this vehicle is then utilized for travel on any of the non OHV authorized areas and routes; it will be considered as a primary vehicle and will require a permit."

I've sent the document to Jason so he can post it or figure out a link.

What I said earlier about a primary vehicle not having to be street legal is incorrect, again this is why as Jason has been saying, you need to see the actual regulation.

Post Reply

Return to “Desert Advisory Council (DAC) ISDRA Sub Group (DSG)”