COLORADO
OHV USER SURVEY

Summary of Results

January 1999

Completed for the
State of Colorado & Colorado OHV Coalition
under a contract with the
Colorado State Parks OHV Program

prepared by

Tom Crimmins, Trails Consultant
212 Ironwood Dr., Suite D-222
Coeur d'Alene, ID 83814
208-762-2298

Summary Presentation

• Slides

Table of Contents

• Introduction
• Survey Methods
• User Experience and Vehicle Use Patterns
• Attributes of Preferred Riding Areas
• Funding Priorities
• Enthusiast Values and Beliefs
• Additional Comments
• Summary

Appendixes

• Form
• Attribute Preference
• Values and Beliefs
• Funding Priorities

Introduction

Management of any recreation activity, including off-highway vehicle (OHV) use, requires an understanding of the environment in which the use occurs, the administrative constraints, laws and regulations associated with the activity. This must be coordinated with the needs, desires and expectations of the participants or enthusiasts. Lack of understanding in any of the above areas will ultimately reduce the quality or quantity of the specific opportunities.

Land management agencies generally have a good understanding of the environments they manage and the agency specific constraints, laws and regulations. When the constraints are based on availability of resources, either funding or expertise, it may be possible to join in partnerships with other agencies or organizations to share the available resources and improve program efficiency.

However, even an efficient program will not be successful unless it meets the needs, responds to the desires and satisfies the expectations of the potential participants. With this in mind, the Colorado State Parks OHV Program determined that it needed to undertake a project to gather specific information from Colorado OHV enthusiasts.

The State has had an OHV registration program for a number of years. The funds collected are available for use by the State or, through grants, by the federal land management agencies to provide riding opportunities, associated facilities and environmental protection. To ensure that the funds are allocated in a manner that provides an effective and efficient program, a survey of OHV enthusiasts was commissioned.

Survey Methods

A four page survey form was developed in cooperation with Colorado State Parks and the Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition (COHVCO). The complete form is included as appendix A of this report. The survey was designed to elicit specific information in a number of areas including:

• Rider experience and vehicle use patterns

• Attributes that riders prefer when they choose an area to ride

• Rider preferences for expenditure of money from the OHV fund

• Rider feelings regarding some selected interest areas

Colorado State Parks provided a list of 6502 randomly selected names of Colorado residents from the OHV registration list. The list was purged for duplicates and for unusable addresses. The survey form was mailed to 5,237 individuals on November 30, 1998.

Seven hundred eighty-four (784) forms (15%) were returned and are compiled for this report. Initial responses were received on December 4, 1998, and virtually all were received prior to December 24, 1998.

User Experience and Vehicle Use Patterns

The Enthusiasts

The individuals responding to this questionnaire were predominantly white (99.97%), males (97.5%) with an average age of 48.3 years. Slightly over 62 percent reported completing some schooling beyond high school.

The above figures should not be interpreted to indicate the gender make up of the entire rider population but only the make up of those answering the survey. In several cases, information indicated that the man or husband was answering for the family as a whole. The racial make up of the population may also be skewed somewhat because there were a number of individuals that did not provide any information on this question.

Riding habits

The respondents indicated an average of 20 years of riding experience and an average skill level of 4.09 with 5 being an advanced rider. Only 20.9% of those responding indicated that they belonged to an OHV club or organization. This latter fact is one of the reasons it is so difficult for management agencies to provide information to the general rider population. Since 80% of the riders are not organized it is important that agencies assure that information is provided through other means such as dealers, parts houses or the enthusiast press in addition to the normal contacts with clubs and organizations.

Riders indicated that their riding frequency was 1.62 times per week and that they made an average of 24 rides in the last 12 months. The average ride lasted 4.7 hours and covered 29 miles. Time and distance ridden includes responses for motorcycle and ATV riders as well as hunters and four-wheel drive enthusiasts. Experience indicates that hunters and 4X4 enthusiasts travel shorter distances during their activities. Therefore the 29 mile average should be considered an absolute minimum for motorcycle and ATV areas. This would indicate that a minimum system that provides more than day use should have at least 60 miles of useable trail and probably more. Day use areas may get by with less than 60 miles. However, with a riding frequency of about one and a half times a week, there is a definite need to provide sufficient miles to eliminate boredom and the tendency or a rider to explore or develop new routes.

There has been a perception that OHV enthusiasts generally travel in larger groups than the general trail user. The following chart indicates that nearly 80% ride in groups of four people or less.

Table 1. Group Size

1-2 People	3-4 People	5-7 People	Over 7 People
26.5%	51.5%	16.0%	6.0%

In addition to group size, riders were asked to indicate how often they rode with others or participated in events or activities. Table 2 shows a breakdown of the number of responses in each category.

Table 2. Riding Associates and Activities

			Almost		Almost		No
		Never	Never	Sometimes	Always	Always	Answer
Alone		147	156	259	91	15	116
With Friends		11	22	274	266	133	73
With Family		42	36	242	252	134	78
With Club		441	50	69	12	1	211
In Events		443	52	68	6	1	213
In Fund Raiser		447	62	59	5	0	211

The high numbers of people that indicated that they never or almost never ride alone is probably a reflection of the recommendations presented in nearly all OHV safety training programs. It appears from the data that many of the people that indicated that they did ride alone, were either hunting, or were riding on their own private land.

The low participation in club activities can be traced to the previously mentioned fact that only 20% of the riders belonged to clubs and not all club members participate in the club activities. The low participation in events and fund raisers would seem to indicate that these activities may be less important to the general riding population. They can be, however, very important to clubs and organizations that may rely on them for funding. For some riders, they may represent the only, or primary, riding activity.

Vehicle Types

The responses received represented a total vehicle ownership of 3524 vehicles. The specific breakdown by vehicle type is shown below. It should be noted that the survey was specifically targeted to owners of off-highway motorcycles and ATV's so it would be expected that these categories would rank highest. However the results show that off-highway motorcycle and ATV owners also participate in a number of other vehicle related recreation activities.

Table 3. Vehicle Ownership

The survey also attempted to determine the relative levels of use for each of the identified vehicle categories. However, data indicated that there was considerable confusion over this particular question and the results were unreliable.

Distribution of Use by Land Ownership

Respondents were asked to indicate the number of times they used their vehicles on various management areas during the last 12 months. A total of 25,406 visits was reported with the following breakdown.

Table 4. Use by Management Agency

Management Agency or Land Ownership	Percentage of Use
National Forests	38.5 %
Bureau of Land Management Lands	18.6 %
OHV Parks	2.0 %
City or County Lands	3.4 %
National Recreation Areas	2.3 %
State Lands	6.0 %
Private Land	22.4 %
Other Jurisdictions	6.6 %

The relatively high levels of use attributed to National Forests and to the Bureau of Land Management would be anticipated based on the fact that they represent the large majority of public, or accessible, lands within the State and they generally represent many of the more scenic or desirable areas. The high level of use attributed to private land may be somewhat misleading because it appears that many respondents reported recreational use that occurred on their own ranches or private land. This use would be reflected in the chart but the opportunities would not be available to the general population of users. In addition, users who had tracks or riding areas available on their own land reported somewhat higher levels of use which would also serve to inflate the private land figure.

Attributes of Preferred in Riding Areas

The survey asked riders to rank the importance of a number of attributes or features that they might find in their riding areas. Appendix B includes the entire list of items considered, ranked by their importance. Following are the attributes that ranked at the top and bottom of the list.

Table 5. Riding Area Attributes

It is interesting, though not unexpected, that the top ranked attributes have to do with availability of opportunity and the quality of the experience. However, the low ranking of facilities (restrooms, water, gas, loading ramps) is somewhat surprising, since many managing agencies focus on these items and generally report a higher user demand. The low ranking of management patrols could be an indication of the desire for a less structured activity or the perception that the use areas are safe and that additional security is not needed to provide a quality experience.

Funding Priorities

All Responses

One section of the survey asked how the respondents felt the money in the Colorado OHV fund should be spent. They were asked to rank selected items on a scale of 1, being most important, to 6, being least important. The average scores were calculated and the relative funding importance was established. Appendix C contains the complete prioritized list. The following table shows the highest and lowest funding priorities for all responses.

Table 6. Funding Priorities

Most Important

Purchase Rights-of-Way for Access

New trail Construction

Erosion Control

Trail System Planning

Purchase Riding areas

Trail Maintenance

Least Important

Event Area Maintenance

Restroom Facilities

Fee Collection

Drinking Water at Trailhead

Information Patrols

Loading Ramps

Here again, the most important items are related to providing or maintaining riding opportunities and assuring the quality of the experience. The lowest rated items were the facilities or user comfort items. Using the information developed in this part of the survey, the ranking of potential grant requests and possible State programs should become much easier and much more effective. Grants or programs that maintain, expand or improve riding opportunities as well as those that improve the quality of the recreation experience should rise to the top of the priority list. Grants or programs that are focused on providing associated facilities or user comfort should be less likely to be funded. There can always be extenuating circumstances that may cause project rankings to be modified. For example, if a restroom was needed to eliminate a sanitation problem that was causing a reduction in water quality, then it should obviously be a higher funding priority. The grant review process should require that facilities or user comfort items should be adequately justified and not rely on statements such as "The users want it."

Hunters & Club Members

Following review of the preliminary data for all responses, there was a question as to whether the funding priorities might be different for hunters and for club members as compared to the group as a whole. As a result, funding priorities were calculated separately for those indicating they belonged to a club and those indicating that they used an ATV for hunting. The complete summaries are shown in Appendix C.

As could be expected, the specific order of funding priorities were slightly different from group to group. However, in general the lists of priorities were surprisingly similar. For each group, five of the top six items were the same. The club members identified volunteer support as a higher priority than purchasing riding areas. This could be expected since most of the trail volunteers are probably, in some way, associated with clubs or organizations. For the hunters, trail signing moved up from seventh into the top six, while the purchase of rights of way dropped into the eighth spot.

For the lowest priority items, the same consistency was evident. Hunters listed the same six items as the group as a whole. Club members ranked funding barriers to keep people on trails in the bottom six items and identified event area maintenance as a higher priority but still in the lower half of the list.

Enthusiast Values and Beliefs

The final part of the survey asked respondents to review a number of statements and to indicate their degree of agreement or disagreement with the statements. Answers varied from 1 strongly disagree to 5 strongly agree with 3 indicating mixed feelings. All of the questions had some answers covering the entire possible range. The averages of all the answers were calculated and are indicated in Table 7. Appendix D includes the summaries of values and beliefs for all responses, club members and hunters ranked on the basis of the level of agreement.

All Responses

The statement "Most trail closures have been done for good reason" received the highest level of disagreement for all responses. This is probably based on two factors. Some road closures may have actually been arbitrary or without reason. But. However, it is also evident that the agencies have done a poor job explaining the reasons and the need for the route closures when they are necessary.

Review of the responses indicates that there may be an interrelationship between some of the other statements. The disagreement with the statement 7 regarding the States involvement in management of OHV areas may be, in part, based on the relatively low opinion of the efficiency of the State OHV program as indicated in statement 2. These opinions are further supported by several of the general comments received, and discussed later in this report.

The riding public clearly recognizes that Colorado has high quality OHV riding opportunities (statements 14, and 1). Riders also recognize the importance of active involvement in the management processes (statements 13 and 8). The enthusiasts' responses also indicate a recognition of the need to reduce environmental effects of OHV use by improving the education of the users in ways to reduce impacts (statement 16).

Table 7. Enthusiast Beliefs -- All Responses

Hunters and Club Members

There is a high level of consistency within the survey results for all the groups. Individual items may differ slightly but the general consistency is obvious. The five statements with the highest level of agreement for all responses were the same for hunters alone and four of the five also were at the top of the list for club members. With one exception, the six statements that created the highest level of disagreement were consistent among all groups.

Hunters had the most disagreement with the statement 10, that most OHV damage occurs during hunting season, but they had a much stronger agreement with need to address the problem of misuse during hunting season (15). In addition, the range of scores for hunters and all responses were quite similar.

Club member's responses indicated a lower level of need for riding areas to be built closer to cities or towns. The range of scores for club members reflected a wider range than any of the other two groups. It is possible that this is a result of the information available to club members that may not be available to other groups. Whenever OHV enthusiasts get together they tend to discuss important issues such as trail closure, funding sources, planning trends or the availability of riding locations. This could be responsible for the higher level of disagreement with statement 12 regarding trail closures and the much higher importance they place on statement 13 regarding the need to be involved in the planning process.

Additional Comments

As part of the survey, respondents were invited to include additional comments regarding any issue that was important to them. Additional comments were received from 62 individuals. As would be expected, most individuals commented on things that made them unhappy. However, there was one comment that offered commendation to the San Isabel and Gunnison National Forests for their excellent programs. Appendix E contains excerpts from the comment letters.

Several themes are evident from the comments. There is a strong feeling by many that road and trail closures, primarily by the Forest Service, have been arbitrary and without merit and specifically designed to reduce OHV recreation opportunities. Whether this perception is true or not is subject to discussion. Nevertheless, it is a strongly held perception that should be addressed by the management agencies. The agencies should strive to ensure that closures are truly necessary and they should make a stronger effort to communicate the reasons for closures to the public.

A second theme evident in the comments is a feeling that the funds collected by the State for registration of OHVs is not being effectively used to provide OHV opportunities. Several individuals indicated that they had seen no evidence that a program existed. It is important that the effected publics understand programs such as OHV registration, to reduce problems with compliance and to ensure future support if the program is challenged. The State should make a strong effort to share the program accomplishments with the owners of off-highway vehicles and other interested publics. There were also several respondents that commented on the need to asses a fee for trail use from other non-motorized users such as hikers, equestrians and mountain bike users.

When discussing the issue of OHV use during hunting season, several individuals suggested changes in the rules affecting use. Many recognized the advantages of using ATVs to retrieve down game. However, they also suggested placing restrictions on the way and time of day vehicles could be used when hunting.

A number of comments in the letters addressed the impacts of OHVs on the environment. Several recognized that the environmental effects of improper use or of use during inappropriate times can be substantial. However, others pointed out that use of OHVs is no more damaging and in some cases less damaging than other non-motorized uses.

Summary and Recommendations

This survey process should be helpful to land managers and to State program managers by clarifying or validating some of the needs, desires, expectations and perceptions of the OHV enthusiast community. This better understanding should result in an improved level of management of Colorado OHV opportunities.

As a result of this survey and analysis of the data, the author would like to submit the following recommendations for consideration by the various agencies and individuals involved with the Colorado OHV Program.

• The State should begin an immediate effort to inform enthusiasts and others of the benefits of the OHV funding program.
• The State and management agencies should work together to develop a network of dealers, parts houses and enthusiast publications to help distribute information to the unorganized enthusiasts.
• The grant, or program review process should be modified, if necessary, to ensure that the funds being spent are directed toward providing facilities or attributes ranked most preferred by the respondents. The process should allow for justification if funds are needed for less desirable items
• Agencies charged with managing OHV use need to develop a better process to explain and justify the reasons for necessary route closures.

Appendix A

Survey Form

• Click here to see Survey Form

Appendix B

Attribute Preference

	Attribute Ranking
1	To be free to users if on public lands	3103
2	have signs showing all the uses allowed on the trail	2929
3	be located away from human activities (roads/buildings)	2918
4	have a variety of scenery	2854
5	to be multi-use	2697
6	have routes connecting to other riding areas	2614
7	be forest roads	2555
8	be controlled for erosion	2507
9	provide long distance (point to point) riding opportunities	2504
10	have long loops	2421
11	start where I am staying (campgrounds)	2388
12	be subject to seasonal closures to avoid damage	2385
13	have signs posted at trailhead indicating trail length	2342
14	have primitive campsites	2324
15	have markers at regular intervals along trail	2282
16	be challenging to my strength	2254
17	have signs posted indicating trail difficulty	2213
18	have technical challenges	2203
19	be well maintained	2089
20	have direction & difficulty signs available at trailhead	2085
21	have maps available at trailhead	2025
22	require a permit if money goes into the trail system	1944
23	be patrolled by land management staff	1904
24	have restrooms available at trailhead	1714
25	be patrolled by local OHV clubs	1698
26	have loading ramps available at trailhead	1485
27	have safe drinking water available at trailhead	1436
28	have gas stations nearby	1362

Appendix C

Funding Priorities

All Responses

	Funding Category	Value
1	Purchase Rights-of-Way for Access	2.34
2	New Trail Construction	2.47
3	Erosion Control	2.73
4	Trail System Planning	2.86
5	Purchase Riding areas	2.97
6	Trail Maintenance	2.98
7	Trail Signing	3.11
8	Trailhead Informational Signing	3.14
9	Maps	3.15
10	Volunteer Support	3.37
11	Trailhead Construction	3.47
12	Closing Illegal Trails	3.62
13	Education & Safety Programs	3.73
14	Campground development	4.03
15	Law Enforcement	4.08
16	Barriers to Keep People on Trails	4.12
17	Event Area Maintenance	4.22
18	Restroom Facilities	4.38
19	Fee Collection	4.70
20	Drinking Water at Trailheads	4.78
21	Information Patrols	4.90
22	Loading Ramps	4.94

Club Members

	Funding Category	Value
1	Purchase Rights-of-Way for Access	2.21
2	New Trail Construction	2.25
6	Trail Maintenance	2.75
4	Trail System Planning	2.76
3	Erosion Control	2.86
10	Volunteer Support	2.88
8	Trailhead Informational Signing	2.98
5	Purchase Riding areas	3.05
9	Maps	3.18
11	Trailhead Construction	3.36
13	Education & Safety Programs	3.41
7	Trail Signing	3.47
17	Event Area Maintenance	3.95
14	Campground development	4.00
12	Closing Illegal Trails	4.06
15	Law Enforcement	4.09
18	Restroom Facilities	4.33
16	Barriers to Keep People on Trails	4.35
19	Fee Collection	4.55
21	Information Patrols	4.90
20	Drinking Water at Trailheads	4.94
22	Loading Ramps	5.03

Hunters

	Funding Category	Value
5	Purchase Riding areas	2.34
2	New Trail Construction	2.56
3	Erosion Control	2.76
6	Trail Maintenance	3.03
4	Trail System Planning	3.04
7	Trail Signing	3.13
8	Trailhead Informational Signing	3.18
1	Purchase Rights-of-Way for Access	3.28
9	Maps	3.33
11	Trailhead Construction	3.63
13	Education & Safety Programs	3.68
12	Closing Illegal Trails	3.73
10	Volunteer Support	3.83
15	Law Enforcement	4.08
14	Campground development	4.16
16	Barriers to Keep People on Trails	4.16
18	Restroom Facilities	4.39
17	Event Area Maintenance	4.66
20	Drinking Water at Trailheads	4.80
22	Loading Ramps	4.92
21	Information Patrols	4.96
19	Fee Collection	5.11

Appendix D

Values and Beliefs

Ranked by level of agreement

All Responses

Club Members

Hunters

Appendix E

Additional Comments

The following listing contains a summary of some of the comments extracted from the letters returned along with the survey forms. The comments have been separated into different categories for ease of review. The actual comment letters are on file with the State Parks OHV Program.

The intensity of the individual feelings may be evident in some of these excerpts. However, it would be important for someone attempting to gauge the true depth of the feelings actually to review the individual letters submitted.

Fees and Registration

I believe its time for bicycle riders and hikers to pay a fair share to use the trails. 11002

Every year I pay my registration fees to create more trails and every year the Forest Service and BLM close more roads. 046102

Horses and hikers and mountain bikers use a lot of the same trails…They pay no user or yearly fees. When are we going to make these people "pay to play" in the Colorado outdoors. 152101

I have never seen where my sticker money has been spent. 000047

How about a cost break for multiple bikes. 91806

I do not see where any OHV registration fees have been used to maintain any OHV trail system.

Require out-of-staters to purchase an off-road sticker. 90402

I believe the money collected at Vail Pass is a joke. 164901

We need to spend money for rights-of-way. 102301

I feel all money should be spent on buying and making new trails. 152001

Why can people come into this state with off road vehicles and not have to pay park fees like myself. 22103

The state of Colorado wants just to collect the money…They take our money and build hiking and bike trails…those people pay nothing. 02008

An increase in user fees is not necessary but like the idea of volunteer programs. 02607

Spend the money on new trails in areas like southern Colorado. 018202

I am against the privatization of fee collection. 114901

I fail to see where we ever have a program. No one has any answers as to where the money goes. 91103

I was told that the annual fee would improve trails, then all I see is trails closed. 140106

I think that the user fee I am paying on ATVs is a farce.

We were promised when the State started charging for registration…that riding areas would be improved or available. Instead most of Estes-Poudre District have been closed for no reason.

Management

Less management is better. However recent growth boom has now forced a situation more management.

Big compliments to San Isabel and Gunnison National Forests for their great trail program. 12805

The only efforts made are those of private riding clubs.

Don't waste money blocking illegal trails. They will just go around.

I am concerned about the damage done by ATVs in National Forests.

We use our ATVs for hunting and don't feel they abuse the trails. 4 wheel drivers … damage the trails when there has been rain or snow. 00503

Most OHV riders obey the rules. 00503; 152001

Erosion is a problem but consistent maintenance would help. Trail I ride never have any facilities signs or maintenance. 102301

The Forest Service should do more work on trails in the summer months with students like they did a few years back. 102301

In the areas I hunt, no one seems to know what is legal or not. 00308

All forest users can learn to live together. We can all use the same trails and areas at the same time.

OHVs do create some erosion and maintenance problems. Funds should be used to keep roads and trails open. 120103

Rough, enjoyable 4 wheel drive roads and trails are turned into 60 ft wide boulevards for logging trucks. 120103

Popular areas are becoming more traveled because of "grooming". 00201

Make trails impassable for the "not made for off road" sport utilities. 00201

ATV use is less damaging than horses. 001702

Mountain bikes and dirt bikes with kids tear up more … than any four wheeler. 60103

The non owners (hunters without four wheelers) are the ones crying about noise and pollution. 60103

We have plenty of trails available in the forests of Colorado. 21901

Our government agencies have become too overbearing and regulatory … managers have made decisions based on personal agendas. 21901

The Forest Service holds hearings but does not listen. 12701

The public impact on land has increased 1000% since my boyhood days. At the same time I have seen Forest Service management control and regulation increase even more. Sometimes it has been well implemented. … Many times (it is) management by closure or management by preference. 91702

I would like to see areas with trails geared toward trials type motorcycles with more primitive and challenging terrain. 152606

The National Forest Service in our area has closed roads that are not owned by them. 150412

If riders stay on the roads, there is no damage. 002607

The less the government interferes … the better off the trails will be. 150417

Directional signs, maps and campgrounds are for no one but out of state people. I know we have to deal with (out-of-state users) but I do not want to encourage it. 108202

I have never been stopped and checked for registration. 91103

The people who seem to do the most damage and misuse are the jeep clubs and horses, neither of which have to pay a registration fee.

I strongly feel that patrols should be increased to keep destructive pools off the trails so responsible riders can enjoy the trails. 90604

There are way too many OHVs in Colorado especially 4-wheelers. Don't promote use just have information available to people. 123002

The damage to the environment is alarming. 123002

Recommend connecting Webster Pass and Jefferson. 22806

Very few ATV or OHV riders abuse the law. They make it tough on riders that abide by the rules. 91503

In the Rampart Range Riding Area there are people using firearms in close proximity to the trails people ride on. 022402

There are numerous wilderness areas and hiking trails in this area for people to use to get away from noise if they so desire. There is room for everyone without closing any more areas.

My son is physically disabled but he sure has a great time driving and riding the ATV.

I don't see that an ATV used properly does any more damage than horses. 091101

Trails that are open need to have better signs. 00406

There are too many people who do not have any idea what they are doing in the mountains. 120109

A horse does more damage to the ground (than ATVs) and its really bad if it is wet.

The large 4 X 4's cause most of the damage. 052403

I would like to see certain roads and trails just open for ATVs. 052403

We need more trails and more connecting trails around Red Feathers. 052403

Road and Trail Closure

Open up trails closed as "buffer zones" to wilderness and there will be a lot more land to go around.

I would like to see an effort made to keep existing roads open. 046102

With each closure they cause more congestion and use of still open roads by people with opposing views. 046102

Reopen all the old stage, wagon and mining roads that have been illegally closed. 000015

For years the Federal government has been quietly…closing off-road trails…with all kinds of phony excuses.

We have lost…some very good trails due to closing the areas. If we allow the greens to keep closing tails my grandson will never get to enjoy what I have. 100504

Open up trails that have been closed such as all the trails above the Rainbow Trail. 102301

I truly believe that most road and trail closures are arbitrary with little or no justification. 12706

More specific rules about closure must be made and posted. 00308

Special groups are trying to get areas closed except for their particular use. 120103

I would like to see the OHV coalition question the Forest Service about closing roads that have been used for years by ATVs. 001702

The Forest Service has closed many old trails and 4 wheel drive roads indiscriminately. They were closed because ""hey did not want to maintain them any longer"" Though they had not been maintained for decades. 021901

I would really like you to reopen the Lake of the Clouds trail.

I am finding that those roads that were closed in the spring because of soft road conditions are now being closed in mid November. I find this very disappointing. 04002

Hunting

OHVs should only be allowed to retrieve down game during hunting seasons.

OHVs are an absolute nuisance during hunting season. There should be an hourly period of use during hunting season. 052401

Require an ATV permit linked to a hunting license.

I have no problem with people using ATVs to retrieve game but very few people use them that way. 090402

Closing well constructed and maintained logging roads … during elk and deer season is absurd. 00055

It appears many able bodied young hunters are unwilling to hunt on foot when they can ride. 012706

The more I and my friends age the more we depend on this ATV to help get our yearly supply of meat. 042001

I have hunted with horses and feel they tear up more than an ATV does. 02008

During hunting season, the … Forest Service … does drive the closed roads in 4WD and ATV vehicles. 012701

The wildlife division wants to sell more licenses … and the Feds keep closing hunters access. 012701

The State should set a time (where) they can go in and retrieve an animal. 114702

I am against private hunting reserves hogging up public access points to public lands. 114901

Something needs to be done to regulate the hours during the day that an ATV can be operated during hunting season.

Survey

The survey was not easy to answer. 001101

Some questions are stupid. Example, provide water. They should know you should take your own. 120109

You will gain nothing from these confusing questions. 91001

     
COHVCO and the COHVCO mountain and vehicles logo are trademarks of the Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition.
Stay The Trail and the Stay The Trail oval logo are registered trademarks of the COHVCO Foundation.
Colorado Trail Patrol and Keep Your Wheels Where They Belong are trademarks of the COHVCO Foundation.
Website and all contents are copyright 1994-2007 COHVCO. All rights reserved.
Membership database application is copyright 2003-2007 by Glen Akins. All rights reserved.