Snorkel ban Minnesota / stop senator Frederickson's Bill SF2793
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Snorkel ban Minnesota / stop senator Frederickson's Bill SF2793
"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'!]
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'!]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Snorkel ban Minnesota / stop senator Frederickson's Bill SF2793
"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'!]
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'!]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Snorkel ban Minnesota / stop senator Frederickson's Bill SF2793
"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'!]
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'!]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Snorkel ban Minnesota / stop senator Frederickson's Bill SF2793
Bill is dead for this session.
Willem-Jan Markerink wrote:
> "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:
>>
>>xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxx
>>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
>
>
>
>
Willem-Jan Markerink wrote:
> "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:
>>
>>xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxx
>>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
>
>
>
>
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Snorkel ban Minnesota / stop senator Frederickson's Bill SF2793
Bill is dead for this session.
Willem-Jan Markerink wrote:
> "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:
>>
>>xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxx
>>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
>
>
>
>
Willem-Jan Markerink wrote:
> "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:
>>
>>xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxx
>>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
>
>
>
>
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Snorkel ban Minnesota / stop senator Frederickson's Bill SF2793
Bill is dead for this session.
Willem-Jan Markerink wrote:
> "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:
>>
>>xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxx
>>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
>
>
>
>
Willem-Jan Markerink wrote:
> "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:
>>
>>xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxx
>>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
>
>
>
>
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Snorkel ban Minnesota / stop senator Frederickson's Bill SF2793
Bill is dead for this session.
Willem-Jan Markerink wrote:
> "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:
>>
>>xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxx
>>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
>
>
>
>
Willem-Jan Markerink wrote:
> "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:
>>
>>xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxx
>>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
>
>
>
>
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Snorkel ban Minnesota / stop senator Frederickson's Bill SF2793
Yeah the MN legislator didn't really get anything passed this session.
"Roy J" <spamless@microsoft.net> wrote in message
news:16Bqc.73$oL6.80726@news.uswest.net...
> Bill is dead for this session.
>
> Willem-Jan Markerink wrote:
>> "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:
>>>
>>>xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxx
>>>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
>>
>>
>>
"Roy J" <spamless@microsoft.net> wrote in message
news:16Bqc.73$oL6.80726@news.uswest.net...
> Bill is dead for this session.
>
> Willem-Jan Markerink wrote:
>> "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:
>>>
>>>xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxx
>>>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
>>
>>
>>
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Snorkel ban Minnesota / stop senator Frederickson's Bill SF2793
Yeah the MN legislator didn't really get anything passed this session.
"Roy J" <spamless@microsoft.net> wrote in message
news:16Bqc.73$oL6.80726@news.uswest.net...
> Bill is dead for this session.
>
> Willem-Jan Markerink wrote:
>> "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:
>>>
>>>xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxx
>>>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
>>
>>
>>
"Roy J" <spamless@microsoft.net> wrote in message
news:16Bqc.73$oL6.80726@news.uswest.net...
> Bill is dead for this session.
>
> Willem-Jan Markerink wrote:
>> "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:
>>>
>>>xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxx
>>>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
>>
>>
>>
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Snorkel ban Minnesota / stop senator Frederickson's Bill SF2793
Yeah the MN legislator didn't really get anything passed this session.
"Roy J" <spamless@microsoft.net> wrote in message
news:16Bqc.73$oL6.80726@news.uswest.net...
> Bill is dead for this session.
>
> Willem-Jan Markerink wrote:
>> "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:
>>>
>>>xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxx
>>>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
>>
>>
>>
"Roy J" <spamless@microsoft.net> wrote in message
news:16Bqc.73$oL6.80726@news.uswest.net...
> Bill is dead for this session.
>
> Willem-Jan Markerink wrote:
>> "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:
>>>
>>>xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxx
>>>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
>>
>>
>>