Willem-Jan Markerink

[posted and mailed]

For all offroad friends, in particular Minnesotans, time for you to stand up
for your rights.
Speak up now, or be silent on this topic forever.


And while it might seem to affect only Minnesota, please realize that this
could set a nasty precedent for other US-states.


Complete background story, first posted 20 march 2004, been running on
several (Land Cruiser related) mailinglists since:

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


Below first the final plea, from Alex Woodmansee, the lady who has spend tons
of hours fighting this bill the polite way, to contact the senator who
created this lunacrous proposition:
(note that the last reactions from his office imply that the senator has NO
interest in changing the current wording at all (despite what he told before,
the bastard!), so the polite game has ended; not only contact his office by
all possible means, but Minnesotans should their own Minnesota senator, to
oppose this bill as strongly as possible)

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: "woodmansee" <woodmansee@ll.net>
Subject: [DTLC] snorkel ban help
Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 08:19:12 -0600

all right, i am starting to get scared now, i am begging everyone, i
don't care where you are, to e-mail Senator Frederickson

sen.dennis.frederickson@senate.mn

or call and leave a voice mail (651) 296-8138

and ask that he do a line item delete on his snorkel ban language in SF
2793

thanks
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx




Last & most important message, falsifying the idea that it would affect only
non-road-legal ATV's:

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xx
From: "woodmansee" <woodmansee@ll.net>
Subject: Re: (Fwd) Re: [80_usa] (Fwd) snorkel ban help / Minnesota
Date: Sat, 3 Apr 2004 11:47:32 -0600

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.


--
Bye,

Willem-Jan Markerink

The desire to understand
is sometimes far less intelligent than
the inability to understand

<w.j.markerink@a1.nl>
[note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!]

herman

"the reason i have a snorkel o my truck is not for illegal deep
water crossings but to get more, cleaner, and colder air for the better
health and improved performance of my deisel engine."

gee , why don't I believe that eh.




"Willem-Jan Markerink" <w.j.markerink@a1.nl> wrote in message
news:Xns94C1785EFEF9wjmarkerinka1nl@130.133.1.4...
> [posted and mailed]
>
> For all offroad friends, in particular Minnesotans, time for you to stand
up
> for your rights.
> Speak up now, or be silent on this topic forever.
>
>
> And while it might seem to affect only Minnesota, please realize that this
> could set a nasty precedent for other US-states.
>
>
> Complete background story, first posted 20 march 2004, been running on
> several (Land Cruiser related) mailinglists since:
>
> http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/...ota_SF2793.txt
>
>
> Below first the final plea, from Alex Woodmansee, the lady who has spend
tons
> of hours fighting this bill the polite way, to contact the senator who
> created this lunacrous proposition:
> (note that the last reactions from his office imply that the senator has
NO
> interest in changing the current wording at all (despite what he told
before,
> the bastard!), so the polite game has ended; not only contact his office
by
> all possible means, but Minnesotans should their own Minnesota senator, to
> oppose this bill as strongly as possible)
>
> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> From: "woodmansee" <woodmansee@ll.net>
> Subject: [DTLC] snorkel ban help
> Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 08:19:12 -0600
>
> all right, i am starting to get scared now, i am begging everyone, i
> don't care where you are, to e-mail Senator Frederickson
>
> sen.dennis.frederickson@senate.mn
>
> or call and leave a voice mail (651) 296-8138
>
> and ask that he do a line item delete on his snorkel ban language in SF
> 2793
>
> thanks
> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
>
> Last & most important message, falsifying the idea that it would affect
only
> non-road-legal ATV's:
>
> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xx
> From: "woodmansee" <woodmansee@ll.net>
> Subject: Re: (Fwd) Re: [80_usa] (Fwd) snorkel ban help / Minnesota
> Date: Sat, 3 Apr 2004 11:47:32 -0600
>
> 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.
>
>
> --
> Bye,
>
> Willem-Jan Markerink
>
> The desire to understand
> is sometimes far less intelligent than
> the inability to understand
>
> <w.j.markerink@a1.nl>
> [note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!]

herman

"the reason i have a snorkel o my truck is not for illegal deep
water crossings but to get more, cleaner, and colder air for the better
health and improved performance of my deisel engine."

gee , why don't I believe that eh.




"Willem-Jan Markerink" <w.j.markerink@a1.nl> wrote in message
news:Xns94C1785EFEF9wjmarkerinka1nl@130.133.1.4...
> [posted and mailed]
>
> For all offroad friends, in particular Minnesotans, time for you to stand
up
> for your rights.
> Speak up now, or be silent on this topic forever.
>
>
> And while it might seem to affect only Minnesota, please realize that this
> could set a nasty precedent for other US-states.
>
>
> Complete background story, first posted 20 march 2004, been running on
> several (Land Cruiser related) mailinglists since:
>
> http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/...ota_SF2793.txt
>
>
> Below first the final plea, from Alex Woodmansee, the lady who has spend
tons
> of hours fighting this bill the polite way, to contact the senator who
> created this lunacrous proposition:
> (note that the last reactions from his office imply that the senator has
NO
> interest in changing the current wording at all (despite what he told
before,
> the bastard!), so the polite game has ended; not only contact his office
by
> all possible means, but Minnesotans should their own Minnesota senator, to
> oppose this bill as strongly as possible)
>
> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> From: "woodmansee" <woodmansee@ll.net>
> Subject: [DTLC] snorkel ban help
> Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 08:19:12 -0600
>
> all right, i am starting to get scared now, i am begging everyone, i
> don't care where you are, to e-mail Senator Frederickson
>
> sen.dennis.frederickson@senate.mn
>
> or call and leave a voice mail (651) 296-8138
>
> and ask that he do a line item delete on his snorkel ban language in SF
> 2793
>
> thanks
> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
>
> Last & most important message, falsifying the idea that it would affect
only
> non-road-legal ATV's:
>
> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xx
> From: "woodmansee" <woodmansee@ll.net>
> Subject: Re: (Fwd) Re: [80_usa] (Fwd) snorkel ban help / Minnesota
> Date: Sat, 3 Apr 2004 11:47:32 -0600
>
> 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.
>
>
> --
> Bye,
>
> Willem-Jan Markerink
>
> The desire to understand
> is sometimes far less intelligent than
> the inability to understand
>
> <w.j.markerink@a1.nl>
> [note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!]

herman

"the reason i have a snorkel o my truck is not for illegal deep
water crossings but to get more, cleaner, and colder air for the better
health and improved performance of my deisel engine."

gee , why don't I believe that eh.




"Willem-Jan Markerink" <w.j.markerink@a1.nl> wrote in message
news:Xns94C1785EFEF9wjmarkerinka1nl@130.133.1.4...
> [posted and mailed]
>
> For all offroad friends, in particular Minnesotans, time for you to stand
up
> for your rights.
> Speak up now, or be silent on this topic forever.
>
>
> And while it might seem to affect only Minnesota, please realize that this
> could set a nasty precedent for other US-states.
>
>
> Complete background story, first posted 20 march 2004, been running on
> several (Land Cruiser related) mailinglists since:
>
> http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/...ota_SF2793.txt
>
>
> Below first the final plea, from Alex Woodmansee, the lady who has spend
tons
> of hours fighting this bill the polite way, to contact the senator who
> created this lunacrous proposition:
> (note that the last reactions from his office imply that the senator has
NO
> interest in changing the current wording at all (despite what he told
before,
> the bastard!), so the polite game has ended; not only contact his office
by
> all possible means, but Minnesotans should their own Minnesota senator, to
> oppose this bill as strongly as possible)
>
> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> From: "woodmansee" <woodmansee@ll.net>
> Subject: [DTLC] snorkel ban help
> Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 08:19:12 -0600
>
> all right, i am starting to get scared now, i am begging everyone, i
> don't care where you are, to e-mail Senator Frederickson
>
> sen.dennis.frederickson@senate.mn
>
> or call and leave a voice mail (651) 296-8138
>
> and ask that he do a line item delete on his snorkel ban language in SF
> 2793
>
> thanks
> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
>
> Last & most important message, falsifying the idea that it would affect
only
> non-road-legal ATV's:
>
> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xx
> From: "woodmansee" <woodmansee@ll.net>
> Subject: Re: (Fwd) Re: [80_usa] (Fwd) snorkel ban help / Minnesota
> Date: Sat, 3 Apr 2004 11:47:32 -0600
>
> 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.
>
>
> --
> Bye,
>
> Willem-Jan Markerink
>
> The desire to understand
> is sometimes far less intelligent than
> the inability to understand
>
> <w.j.markerink@a1.nl>
> [note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!]

herman

"the reason i have a snorkel o my truck is not for illegal deep
water crossings but to get more, cleaner, and colder air for the better
health and improved performance of my deisel engine."

gee , why don't I believe that eh.




"Willem-Jan Markerink" <w.j.markerink@a1.nl> wrote in message
news:Xns94C1785EFEF9wjmarkerinka1nl@130.133.1.4...
> [posted and mailed]
>
> For all offroad friends, in particular Minnesotans, time for you to stand
up
> for your rights.
> Speak up now, or be silent on this topic forever.
>
>
> And while it might seem to affect only Minnesota, please realize that this
> could set a nasty precedent for other US-states.
>
>
> Complete background story, first posted 20 march 2004, been running on
> several (Land Cruiser related) mailinglists since:
>
> http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/...ota_SF2793.txt
>
>
> Below first the final plea, from Alex Woodmansee, the lady who has spend
tons
> of hours fighting this bill the polite way, to contact the senator who
> created this lunacrous proposition:
> (note that the last reactions from his office imply that the senator has
NO
> interest in changing the current wording at all (despite what he told
before,
> the bastard!), so the polite game has ended; not only contact his office
by
> all possible means, but Minnesotans should their own Minnesota senator, to
> oppose this bill as strongly as possible)
>
> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> From: "woodmansee" <woodmansee@ll.net>
> Subject: [DTLC] snorkel ban help
> Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 08:19:12 -0600
>
> all right, i am starting to get scared now, i am begging everyone, i
> don't care where you are, to e-mail Senator Frederickson
>
> sen.dennis.frederickson@senate.mn
>
> or call and leave a voice mail (651) 296-8138
>
> and ask that he do a line item delete on his snorkel ban language in SF
> 2793
>
> thanks
> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
>
> Last & most important message, falsifying the idea that it would affect
only
> non-road-legal ATV's:
>
> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xx
> From: "woodmansee" <woodmansee@ll.net>
> Subject: Re: (Fwd) Re: [80_usa] (Fwd) snorkel ban help / Minnesota
> Date: Sat, 3 Apr 2004 11:47:32 -0600
>
> 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.
>
>
> --
> Bye,
>
> Willem-Jan Markerink
>
> The desire to understand
> is sometimes far less intelligent than
> the inability to understand
>
> <w.j.markerink@a1.nl>
> [note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!]

Bob

Not that I claim to know whether this quote speaks the truth for the
person quoted, but I do know a few jeepers with safari snorkels who
installed the snorkels primarily for that exact reason: colder/cleaner
air intake. I mean, a snorkel on the intake alone is not enough to
make your jeep able to ford water that much deeper anyway; there are
other items that need to be fixed (vent lines, etc), not to mention
the possibility of simply floating away if you get in water deep
enough to require that snorkel.

So, I'm not quite so cynical as you about the proclaimed reason for
having a snorkel.


"herman" <email@adress.there> wrote in message news:<SA2dc.33701$Bk31.2723@twister01.bloor.is.net .cable.rogers.com>...
> "the reason i have a snorkel o my truck is not for illegal deep
> water crossings but to get more, cleaner, and colder air for the better
> health and improved performance of my deisel engine."
>
> gee , why don't I believe that eh.
>
>
>
>
> "Willem-Jan Markerink" <w.j.markerink@a1.nl> wrote in message
> news:Xns94C1785EFEF9wjmarkerinka1nl@130.133.1.4...
> > [posted and mailed]
> >
> > For all offroad friends, in particular Minnesotans, time for you to stand
> up
> > for your rights.
> > Speak up now, or be silent on this topic forever.
> >
> >
> > And while it might seem to affect only Minnesota, please realize that this
> > could set a nasty precedent for other US-states.
> >
> >
> > Complete background story, first posted 20 march 2004, been running on
> > several (Land Cruiser related) mailinglists since:
> >
> > http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/...ota_SF2793.txt
> >
> >
> > Below first the final plea, from Alex Woodmansee, the lady who has spend
> tons
> > of hours fighting this bill the polite way, to contact the senator who
> > created this lunacrous proposition:
> > (note that the last reactions from his office imply that the senator has
> NO
> > interest in changing the current wording at all (despite what he told
> before,
> > the bastard!), so the polite game has ended; not only contact his office
> by
> > all possible means, but Minnesotans should their own Minnesota senator, to
> > oppose this bill as strongly as possible)
> >
> > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > From: "woodmansee" <woodmansee@ll.net>
> > Subject: [DTLC] snorkel ban help
> > Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 08:19:12 -0600
> >
> > all right, i am starting to get scared now, i am begging everyone, i
> > don't care where you are, to e-mail Senator Frederickson
> >
> > sen.dennis.frederickson@senate.mn
> >
> > or call and leave a voice mail (651) 296-8138
> >
> > and ask that he do a line item delete on his snorkel ban language in SF
> > 2793
> >
> > thanks
> > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Last & most important message, falsifying the idea that it would affect
> only
> > non-road-legal ATV's:
> >
> > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xx
> > From: "woodmansee" <woodmansee@ll.net>
> > Subject: Re: (Fwd) Re: [80_usa] (Fwd) snorkel ban help / Minnesota
> > Date: Sat, 3 Apr 2004 11:47:32 -0600
> >
> > 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.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Bye,
> >
> > Willem-Jan Markerink
> >
> > The desire to understand
> > is sometimes far less intelligent than
> > the inability to understand
> >
> > <w.j.markerink@a1.nl>
> > [note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!]

Bob

Not that I claim to know whether this quote speaks the truth for the
person quoted, but I do know a few jeepers with safari snorkels who
installed the snorkels primarily for that exact reason: colder/cleaner
air intake. I mean, a snorkel on the intake alone is not enough to
make your jeep able to ford water that much deeper anyway; there are
other items that need to be fixed (vent lines, etc), not to mention
the possibility of simply floating away if you get in water deep
enough to require that snorkel.

So, I'm not quite so cynical as you about the proclaimed reason for
having a snorkel.


"herman" <email@adress.there> wrote in message news:<SA2dc.33701$Bk31.2723@twister01.bloor.is.net .cable.rogers.com>...
> "the reason i have a snorkel o my truck is not for illegal deep
> water crossings but to get more, cleaner, and colder air for the better
> health and improved performance of my deisel engine."
>
> gee , why don't I believe that eh.
>
>
>
>
> "Willem-Jan Markerink" <w.j.markerink@a1.nl> wrote in message
> news:Xns94C1785EFEF9wjmarkerinka1nl@130.133.1.4...
> > [posted and mailed]
> >
> > For all offroad friends, in particular Minnesotans, time for you to stand
> up
> > for your rights.
> > Speak up now, or be silent on this topic forever.
> >
> >
> > And while it might seem to affect only Minnesota, please realize that this
> > could set a nasty precedent for other US-states.
> >
> >
> > Complete background story, first posted 20 march 2004, been running on
> > several (Land Cruiser related) mailinglists since:
> >
> > http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/...ota_SF2793.txt
> >
> >
> > Below first the final plea, from Alex Woodmansee, the lady who has spend
> tons
> > of hours fighting this bill the polite way, to contact the senator who
> > created this lunacrous proposition:
> > (note that the last reactions from his office imply that the senator has
> NO
> > interest in changing the current wording at all (despite what he told
> before,
> > the bastard!), so the polite game has ended; not only contact his office
> by
> > all possible means, but Minnesotans should their own Minnesota senator, to
> > oppose this bill as strongly as possible)
> >
> > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > From: "woodmansee" <woodmansee@ll.net>
> > Subject: [DTLC] snorkel ban help
> > Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 08:19:12 -0600
> >
> > all right, i am starting to get scared now, i am begging everyone, i
> > don't care where you are, to e-mail Senator Frederickson
> >
> > sen.dennis.frederickson@senate.mn
> >
> > or call and leave a voice mail (651) 296-8138
> >
> > and ask that he do a line item delete on his snorkel ban language in SF
> > 2793
> >
> > thanks
> > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Last & most important message, falsifying the idea that it would affect
> only
> > non-road-legal ATV's:
> >
> > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xx
> > From: "woodmansee" <woodmansee@ll.net>
> > Subject: Re: (Fwd) Re: [80_usa] (Fwd) snorkel ban help / Minnesota
> > Date: Sat, 3 Apr 2004 11:47:32 -0600
> >
> > 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.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Bye,
> >
> > Willem-Jan Markerink
> >
> > The desire to understand
> > is sometimes far less intelligent than
> > the inability to understand
> >
> > <w.j.markerink@a1.nl>
> > [note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!]

Bob

Not that I claim to know whether this quote speaks the truth for the
person quoted, but I do know a few jeepers with safari snorkels who
installed the snorkels primarily for that exact reason: colder/cleaner
air intake. I mean, a snorkel on the intake alone is not enough to
make your jeep able to ford water that much deeper anyway; there are
other items that need to be fixed (vent lines, etc), not to mention
the possibility of simply floating away if you get in water deep
enough to require that snorkel.

So, I'm not quite so cynical as you about the proclaimed reason for
having a snorkel.


"herman" <email@adress.there> wrote in message news:<SA2dc.33701$Bk31.2723@twister01.bloor.is.net .cable.rogers.com>...
> "the reason i have a snorkel o my truck is not for illegal deep
> water crossings but to get more, cleaner, and colder air for the better
> health and improved performance of my deisel engine."
>
> gee , why don't I believe that eh.
>
>
>
>
> "Willem-Jan Markerink" <w.j.markerink@a1.nl> wrote in message
> news:Xns94C1785EFEF9wjmarkerinka1nl@130.133.1.4...
> > [posted and mailed]
> >
> > For all offroad friends, in particular Minnesotans, time for you to stand
> up
> > for your rights.
> > Speak up now, or be silent on this topic forever.
> >
> >
> > And while it might seem to affect only Minnesota, please realize that this
> > could set a nasty precedent for other US-states.
> >
> >
> > Complete background story, first posted 20 march 2004, been running on
> > several (Land Cruiser related) mailinglists since:
> >
> > http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/...ota_SF2793.txt
> >
> >
> > Below first the final plea, from Alex Woodmansee, the lady who has spend
> tons
> > of hours fighting this bill the polite way, to contact the senator who
> > created this lunacrous proposition:
> > (note that the last reactions from his office imply that the senator has
> NO
> > interest in changing the current wording at all (despite what he told
> before,
> > the bastard!), so the polite game has ended; not only contact his office
> by
> > all possible means, but Minnesotans should their own Minnesota senator, to
> > oppose this bill as strongly as possible)
> >
> > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > From: "woodmansee" <woodmansee@ll.net>
> > Subject: [DTLC] snorkel ban help
> > Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 08:19:12 -0600
> >
> > all right, i am starting to get scared now, i am begging everyone, i
> > don't care where you are, to e-mail Senator Frederickson
> >
> > sen.dennis.frederickson@senate.mn
> >
> > or call and leave a voice mail (651) 296-8138
> >
> > and ask that he do a line item delete on his snorkel ban language in SF
> > 2793
> >
> > thanks
> > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Last & most important message, falsifying the idea that it would affect
> only
> > non-road-legal ATV's:
> >
> > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xx
> > From: "woodmansee" <woodmansee@ll.net>
> > Subject: Re: (Fwd) Re: [80_usa] (Fwd) snorkel ban help / Minnesota
> > Date: Sat, 3 Apr 2004 11:47:32 -0600
> >
> > 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.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Bye,
> >
> > Willem-Jan Markerink
> >
> > The desire to understand
> > is sometimes far less intelligent than
> > the inability to understand
> >
> > <w.j.markerink@a1.nl>
> > [note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!]

Bob

Not that I claim to know whether this quote speaks the truth for the
person quoted, but I do know a few jeepers with safari snorkels who
installed the snorkels primarily for that exact reason: colder/cleaner
air intake. I mean, a snorkel on the intake alone is not enough to
make your jeep able to ford water that much deeper anyway; there are
other items that need to be fixed (vent lines, etc), not to mention
the possibility of simply floating away if you get in water deep
enough to require that snorkel.

So, I'm not quite so cynical as you about the proclaimed reason for
having a snorkel.


"herman" <email@adress.there> wrote in message news:<SA2dc.33701$Bk31.2723@twister01.bloor.is.net .cable.rogers.com>...
> "the reason i have a snorkel o my truck is not for illegal deep
> water crossings but to get more, cleaner, and colder air for the better
> health and improved performance of my deisel engine."
>
> gee , why don't I believe that eh.
>
>
>
>
> "Willem-Jan Markerink" <w.j.markerink@a1.nl> wrote in message
> news:Xns94C1785EFEF9wjmarkerinka1nl@130.133.1.4...
> > [posted and mailed]
> >
> > For all offroad friends, in particular Minnesotans, time for you to stand
> up
> > for your rights.
> > Speak up now, or be silent on this topic forever.
> >
> >
> > And while it might seem to affect only Minnesota, please realize that this
> > could set a nasty precedent for other US-states.
> >
> >
> > Complete background story, first posted 20 march 2004, been running on
> > several (Land Cruiser related) mailinglists since:
> >
> > http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/...ota_SF2793.txt
> >
> >
> > Below first the final plea, from Alex Woodmansee, the lady who has spend
> tons
> > of hours fighting this bill the polite way, to contact the senator who
> > created this lunacrous proposition:
> > (note that the last reactions from his office imply that the senator has
> NO
> > interest in changing the current wording at all (despite what he told
> before,
> > the bastard!), so the polite game has ended; not only contact his office
> by
> > all possible means, but Minnesotans should their own Minnesota senator, to
> > oppose this bill as strongly as possible)
> >
> > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > From: "woodmansee" <woodmansee@ll.net>
> > Subject: [DTLC] snorkel ban help
> > Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 08:19:12 -0600
> >
> > all right, i am starting to get scared now, i am begging everyone, i
> > don't care where you are, to e-mail Senator Frederickson
> >
> > sen.dennis.frederickson@senate.mn
> >
> > or call and leave a voice mail (651) 296-8138
> >
> > and ask that he do a line item delete on his snorkel ban language in SF
> > 2793
> >
> > thanks
> > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Last & most important message, falsifying the idea that it would affect
> only
> > non-road-legal ATV's:
> >
> > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xx
> > From: "woodmansee" <woodmansee@ll.net>
> > Subject: Re: (Fwd) Re: [80_usa] (Fwd) snorkel ban help / Minnesota
> > Date: Sat, 3 Apr 2004 11:47:32 -0600
> >
> > 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.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Bye,
> >
> > Willem-Jan Markerink
> >
> > The desire to understand
> > is sometimes far less intelligent than
> > the inability to understand
> >
> > <w.j.markerink@a1.nl>
> > [note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!]

Willem-Jan Markerink

"Willem-Jan Markerink" <w.j.markerink@a1.nl> wrote in
news:Xns94C1785EFEF9wjmarkerinka1nl@130.133.1.4:

> [posted and mailed]
>
> For all offroad friends, in particular Minnesotans, time for you to stand
up
> for your rights.
> Speak up now, or be silent on this topic forever.
>
>
> And while it might seem to affect only Minnesota, please realize that
this
> could set a nasty precedent for other US-states.
>
>
> Complete background story, first posted 20 march 2004, been running on
> several (Land Cruiser related) mailinglists since:
>
> http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/...ota_SF2793.txt
>
>
> Below first the final plea, from Alex Woodmansee, the lady who has spend
tons
> of hours fighting this bill the polite way, to contact the senator who
> created this lunacrous proposition:
> (note that the last reactions from his office imply that the senator has
NO
> interest in changing the current wording at all (despite what he told
before,
> the bastard!), so the polite game has ended; not only contact his office
by
> all possible means, but Minnesotans should their own Minnesota senator,
to
> oppose this bill as strongly as possible)
>
> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> From: "woodmansee" <woodmansee@ll.net>
> Subject: [DTLC] snorkel ban help
> Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 08:19:12 -0600
>
> all right, i am starting to get scared now, i am begging everyone, i
> don't care where you are, to e-mail Senator Frederickson
>
> sen.dennis.frederickson@senate.mn
>
> or call and leave a voice mail (651) 296-8138
>
> and ask that he do a line item delete on his snorkel ban language in SF
> 2793
>
> thanks
> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
>
> Last & most important message, falsifying the idea that it would affect
only
> non-road-legal ATV's:
>
> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xx
> From: "woodmansee" <woodmansee@ll.net>
> Subject: Re: (Fwd) Re: [80_usa] (Fwd) snorkel ban help / Minnesota
> Date: Sat, 3 Apr 2004 11:47:32 -0600
>
> 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.
>
>

Good news!

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXxxx
On 18 May 2004 at 21:32, All American Imports wrote:

> Some good news for a change.
>
> Pushing and pulling here and there has helped a bit.

Reminds me of pigs....;))
(even my own Iron Pig, as that is how its front door operates....:))

> Being a member payed off this time.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Maarten Verschure
>
> Verzonden: dinsdag 18 mei 2004 19:50
> Onderwerp: SEMA Legislative Update: Minnesota Anti-Hobbyist Snorkel Bill
> DIES

Kewl....:))
(in a Dutch newsgroup a few weeks ago, I ended a boring discussion by
stating that I now had better things to do, like interfering with US-
politics, but I gladly share that honor with a fellow Dutchman of
course....;))

Willem
(wishing he had a similar amount of influence on local
politics....;))
Jan


> LEGISLATIVE UPDATE
>
> Anti-Hobbyist Snorkel Bill Dies As Minnesota Legislature Adjourns
>
> Legislation (SF 2793/SF 2831) that would have prohibited
> operation of an off-highway vehicle (OHV) on public land or public
> waters with an air-intake pipe or snorkel that is more than six inches
> above the manufacturer's original air-intake pipe died when the
> Minnesota Legislature adjourned. SF 2793 was introduced as a proposal
> for a study on the impact of OHVs on wetlands, but was amended in
> committee to include the proposed ban on snorkel use. We will be on
> alert if and when the bill is introduced again next year!
>
> Congratulations to Those Who Contacted Minnesota State Legislators to
> Oppose this Bill!
>
> SEMA Washington Office
>
> 1317 F Street, N.W., Suite 500
>
> Washington, D.C. 20004-1105
>
> Attention: Steve McDonald
>
> stevem@sema.org



--
Bye,

Willem-Jan Markerink

The desire to understand
is sometimes far less intelligent than
the inability to understand

<w.j.markerink@a1.nl>
[note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!]