Where ATVs Are Ridden

Where ATVs Are Ridden:

An Analysis of Data Collected for the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources

Gene Larimore, JackPine Coalition

In 2005 the Minnesota legislature directed the Minnesota Departments of Natural Resources (DNR), Revenue, and Transportation to determine the percentage of highway-taxable gasoline used by ATVs for recreation, that is, for non-business purposes. The DNR hired ThomTech Design, Inc. of St. Paul to conduct a study to find out this information.

ThomTech prepared a report describing how their study was conducted and what the study results were. The DNR released this report, Study of Annual Recreational Fuel Consumption by All-Terrain Vehicles (ATVs) Final Report, on March 1, 2006. The report states that “the goals of the project were (1) to estimate annual recreational gas consumption by all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) and (2) to provide information to allocate gas-consumption among different ATV-facility types, including public land, trails, and forest roads; public roads right of way; and private land, trails, and roads.”

In other words, goal 1 addressed the issue of ATV gas consumption and goal 2 addressed the issue of where ATVs are ridden for recreational purposes.

The report states that “a single mail-out survey to meet the requirements of both goals was administered as part of the study methodology. One survey was used because the requirements of the first goal are a subset of the second goal, except for the use inside and outside of Minnesota.”

ThomTech Design convened two focus groups in order to test and refine the survey instrument that would be sent to randomly selected owners of appropriately registered ATVs. Focus group participants were selected from owners of registered ATVs in the Twin Cities area. One focus group dealt with goal 1, trying to determine how best to phrase questions regarding ATV gas consumption in the previous twelve months. The second focus group dealt with goal 2, trying to develop a set of questions intended to elicit information on where (in which county or counties) the survey respondent’s ATV was being ridden and the number of days that the ATV was used on the different types of facilities. Over two pages of a three-and-a-half-page survey instrument were devoted to capturing data regarding goal 2.

A random sample of 2,400 registered ATV owners was drawn from the DNR file of ATVs registered for recreational use and their owners. The return rate, 77% (1,775 respondents), was good for this kind of research. Some (241) of the returned surveys were not used in ThomTech’s analysis and their reasons for not using them are well described in the report. ThomTech's analysis of data regarding goal 1 was therefore based on 1534 returned surveys.

The analysis of goal 1 data (gas consumption) shows that “Minnesota had 236,683 ATVs with recreational registrations in 2005. Based on the study results, the average ATV used about 30 gallons of gasoline annually for recreation purposes.”

Inexplicably, no analysis of goal 2 data was presented. After financing the investment to prepare for capturing data on goal 2 and after spending resources to actually capture the goal 2 data, the DNR chose not to require ThomTech to analyze and report on this important information.

The theory behind the allocation of gas tax money to the ATV account at the DNR rests on the belief that if people are riding ATVs or other off-road vehicles recreationally, the gas tax that they pay for fuel used in their recreational riding does not need to go to the Highway User Tax Distribution Fund, which, with some exceptions, receives gas tax money from fuel used for driving on public roads. Pointing to the gas tax money that recreational ATV riders pay when purchasing fuel for their machines, advocates of recreational ATV riding have lobbied to use this money to fund trail accounts at the DNR.

There is not a good rationale for using gas taxes paid by people who are riding on their own lands or the lands of other private landowners, and transferring it for use on public trails that those riders don't use. Similarly, it is inappropriate to use gas tax dollars attributable to ditch riding for ATV trails when the Highway User Tax Distribution Fund needs those dollars to repair damage to ditches done by ATV riders.

Consequently, it is important to know how much ATV riding is done on public lands and trails versus how much is done on private lands or road right-of-ways.

When Senator Marty learned that the ThomTech report had not analyzed the data obtained in the survey regarding goal 2, he requested a copy of the entire study data set. The DNR promptly provided this data in the form of a spreadsheet. Senator Marty provided this data set to me for analysis.

The data set contained 1,534 records. These records contain the responses of 1,534 respondents to the survey. In examining these records, I found there were serious inconsistencies with the data regarding goal 2. It was obvious that large numbers of respondents had not understood the directions provided in the survey. Some respondents simply left some survey questions unanswered. Others provided answers that did not make sense. I considered a record unusable for analysis if the total riding days in the county where the ATV was most often ridden did not equal the sum of riding days on private land, public land, and ditches in that county. One could try to figure out what the respondent intended, but there is no certain way of understanding their intent. A quick review of the rejected records did not appear to change the results significantly, so I decided to reject any response that could be challenged for lack of clarity.

Of the original 1,534 records obtained from the DNR, 553 failed my simple test and were excluded from the analysis. In other words I was left with a usable data set of 981 records, 64% of the data set I had received.

An analysis of the data from the 981 records that contain usable data reveals this breakdown* of where ATV riding days are spent:

This analysis of data regarding where ATVs are ridden should have been completed by the DNR because it is relevant and important for the proper allocation of gas tax funds. We completed the data analysis because it is not possible to accurately allocate those funds without this information. The analysis provides results that will surprise some readers. However, an earlier report released by the DNR in 2001 reported similar findings. That report, An OHV Recreation Planning Tool, showed that over half of ATV owners never use ATVs registered for recreation for riding in forests. The 2001 report also demonstrated that 10% of ATV owners accounted for 57% of all forest riding. The public and the legislature have been told for years that hundreds of thousands of ATV owners were demanding a place to ride. The analysis shows that most ATV riders have a place to ride: private property.

The analysis also shows that ATV riding on public land makes up a small portion, less than 15%, of recreational ATV riding. Consequently, the gas tax money transferred from the Highway User Tax Distribution Fund to the ATV trails account should be only 15% of the recreational gas consumed by all ATVs.

Based on the analysis of all data from the new gas tax study conducted by ThomTech Design, Inc., for the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, it is apparent that, instead of receiving an increase, the transfer from the Highway User Tax Distribution Fund to the DNR ATV trails account should be reduced to a total of approximately $210,000.