From: "woodmansee" To: Subject: [DTLC] need snorkel help Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2004 10:11:31 -0600 Reply-To: dtlc@helios.net hi all, i am getting clobbered here at capitol hill. a bill that just left the senate environment committee has a paragraph in it about off highway vehicles may not operate off road on state lands with an air intake more than 6 inches above manufacturer original. i got up and testified last monday that the reason i have a snorkel o my truck is not for illegal deep water crossings but to get more, cleaner, and colder air for the better health and improved performance of my deisel engine. can someone please send me some links to websites that i can refer senators to next week as i go back to lobby more that explains/documents these reasons for snorkels (that do not refer to any water crossing abilities preferably)...... thanks, alex w. minnesota From: "Dominic von Stoesser" Subject: Re: [DTLC] need snorkel help Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2004 19:30:38 +0200 To: dtlc@helios.net Reply-To: dtlc@helios.net You could always testify that Toyota produces the 70 series with an OEM snorkel... ...and then replace the Safari one with a Toyota OEM snorkel? Cheers - dom On 20 Mar, 2004, at 18:11, woodmansee wrote: > hi all, > > i am getting clobbered here at capitol hill. a bill that just left the > senate environment committee has a paragraph in it about off highway > vehicles may not operate off road on state lands with an air intake > more > than 6 inches above manufacturer original. i got up and testified last > monday that the reason i have a snorkel o my truck is not for illegal > deep > water crossings but to get more, cleaner, and colder air for the better > health and improved performance of my deisel engine. can someone > please > send me some links to websites that i can refer senators to next week > as i > go back to lobby more that explains/documents these reasons for > snorkels > (that do not refer to any water crossing abilities preferably)...... > > thanks, > > alex w. > minnesota > From: w.j.markerink@a1.nl To: dtlc@helios.net Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2004 18:31:31 +0100 Subject: Re: [DTLC] need snorkel help Reply-To: dtlc@helios.net On 20 Mar 2004 at 10:11, woodmansee wrote: > hi all, > > i am getting clobbered here at capitol hill. a bill that just left the > senate environment committee has a paragraph in it about off highway > vehicles may not operate off road on state lands with an air intake more > than 6 inches above manufacturer original. i got up and testified last > monday that the reason i have a snorkel o my truck is not for illegal deep > water crossings but to get more, cleaner, and colder air for the better > health and improved performance of my deisel engine. can someone please > send me some links to websites that i can refer senators to next week as i > go back to lobby more that explains/documents these reasons for snorkels > (that do not refer to any water crossing abilities preferably)...... > > thanks, > > alex w. > minnesota > What about pointing out the fact that a) an OEM Toyota version exist till this very day, and b) that this OEM Toyota version isn't even waterproof? (and only available with dust/cyclone filter AFAIK). Also ask them what the difference is between a stock Unimog intake at 3m height, vs aftermarket Cruiser at 2m.... -- Bye, Willem-Jan Markerink The desire to understand is sometimes far less intelligent than the inability to understand [note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!] From: "Dana Adams" To: dtlc@helios.net, woodmansee@ll.net Subject: Re: [DTLC] need snorkel help Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2004 17:35:19 +0000 Reply-To: dtlc@helios.net How ridiculous! WJM and I have posted your plea to some of the other lists, especially the OZ 80-series, hopefully they will respond with some good ideas. dana >From: "woodmansee" >Reply-To: dtlc@helios.net >To: >Subject: [DTLC] need snorkel help >Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2004 10:11:31 -0600 > >hi all, > >i am getting clobbered here at capitol hill. a bill that just left the >senate environment committee has a paragraph in it about off highway >vehicles may not operate off road on state lands with an air intake more >than 6 inches above manufacturer original. i got up and testified last >monday that the reason i have a snorkel o my truck is not for illegal deep >water crossings but to get more, cleaner, and colder air for the better >health and improved performance of my deisel engine. can someone please >send me some links to websites that i can refer senators to next week as i >go back to lobby more that explains/documents these reasons for snorkels >(that do not refer to any water crossing abilities preferably)...... > >thanks, > >alex w. >minnesota > From: "Dana Adams" To: dtlc@helios.net Subject: Re: [DTLC] need snorkel help Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2004 17:54:03 +0000 Reply-To: dtlc@helios.net Good point. I also notice that a lot of commercial tractor-trucks have their huge airfilter assemblies actually mounted on the "A" pillar area, well above the hood. What's up with that? Are they driving through the Mississippi instead of over it? >Also ask them what the difference is between a stock Unimog intake at >3m height, vs aftermarket Cruiser at 2m.... > From: "woodmansee" To: Subject: Re: [DTLC] need snorkel help Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2004 11:59:36 -0600 Reply-To: dtlc@helios.net > What about pointing out the fact that a) an OEM Toyota version exist > till this very day, and have you an official toyota link that clearly states the snorkel is manufacturer? even then, my snorkels are after market, but still, it would make a good point next time i have to testify..... > b) that this OEM Toyota version isn't even > waterproof? (and only available with dust/cyclone filter AFAIK). already testified to this monday, problem is the minnesota center for environmental advocacy had photos of ATVs with snorkels going through deep water after anti-wetland/water crossing lawas were passed last year, this paragraph is meant to go after the ATVs and off-highway motorcycles but it affects the off road trucks as well because of the wording. my only hope is to try to get trucks excluded from this provision or get rid of the provision all together > > Also ask them what the difference is between a stock Unimog intake at > 3m height, vs aftermarket Cruiser at 2m.... > have you an official mercedes link that shows the unimog intake as that high? this could be a good argument, but i really need to focus on the argument that snorkels do not necessarily equate to water crossing..... Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2004 12:03:59 -0900 From: Sean Bybee Subject: Re: [DTLC] need snorkel help...now safari snorkel To: dtlc@helios.net Reply-To: dtlc@helios.net > What about pointing out the fact that a) an OEM Toyota version exist > till this very day, and b) that this OEM Toyota version isn't even > waterproof? (and only available with dust/cyclone filter AFAIK). Is the safari snorkel waterproof? Sean From: w.j.markerink@a1.nl To: dtlc@helios.net Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 00:08:50 +0100 Subject: Re: [DTLC] need snorkel help Reply-To: dtlc@helios.net Cc: 80scool_usa@yahoogroups.com, 80scool_aus@yahoogroups.com, 80scool@yahoogroups.com, landcruisers@birfield.com On 20 Mar 2004 at 11:59, woodmansee wrote: > > What about pointing out the fact that a) an OEM Toyota version exist > > till this very day, and > > have you an official toyota link that clearly states the snorkel is > manufacturer? even then, my snorkels are after market, but still, it would > make a good point next time i have to testify..... They are even made for HiAce IIRC....just slapped on the side, flat tube running upwards....might be aftermarket though, but OTOH, that's not a typical Ozzi application, and foreign aftermarket would be too hard to get in Africa, hence not a market for Ozzi manufacturers either I guess....either OEM Toyota, right from the start, or none at all.... Hmmm....just checked Toyota Gibraltar.... http://www.toyota-gib.com ....while they list an optional Airtec (not factory) snorkel for the HZJ/FZJ-105 (sub-page 'more options'), they don't list any *optional* snorkel for the J7, while *every* J7 is shown with snorkel, as if it was bone-stock for that general-spec version.... And it *ought* to be found in the EPC too, just not sure in which category to look (tried to find it there before, in vain back then, but perhaps someone else has more talent....:)). Not even sure whether the Russian online-EPC even lists the general- spec versions, the only options are Europe/USA/Japan, not even Australia. http://makeashorterlink.com/?Y3F221E77 (select area & hit lower button) > > b) that this OEM Toyota version isn't even > > waterproof? (and only available with dust/cyclone filter AFAIK). > > already testified to this monday, problem is the minnesota center for > environmental advocacy had photos of ATVs with snorkels going through deep > water after anti-wetland/water crossing lawas were passed last year, this > paragraph is meant to go after the ATVs and off-highway motorcycles but it > affects the off road trucks as well because of the wording. my only hope is > to try to get trucks excluded from this provision or get rid of the > provision all together Another argument: the most radical 'snorkels' are the ones running through the firewall, using interior air (might be bad for your eardrums though....:)). > > > > Also ask them what the difference is between a stock Unimog intake at > > 3m height, vs aftermarket Cruiser at 2m.... > > > > have you an official mercedes link that shows the unimog intake as that > high? http://www.google.com/search?q=unimog+snorkel http://www.unimogwherehaus.com/trucks421.html http://www.fourwheeler.com/featuredvehicles/21479/ More specific, showing the still current factory snorkel: http://www.mercedes-benz.com/omb/e/ecars/unimog/uhn_anw_orf.htm Note that despite the intake height of 3m, they still mention a fording depth of 1.2m....that might your bulls-eye argument, 100% congruent with how Toyota regards its snorkel: against dust, not against water. > this could be a good argument, but i really need to focus on the argument > that snorkels do not necessarily equate to water crossing..... Yup, that's why I mentioned the non-waterproof OEM Toyota product; once gathered from this discussion: http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/tlcsnork.txt (the note from George Couyant near the bottom) -- Bye, Willem-Jan Markerink The desire to understand is sometimes far less intelligent than the inability to understand [note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!] From: w.j.markerink@a1.nl To: dtlc@helios.net Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 02:08:35 +0100 Subject: Re: [DTLC] need snorkel help...now safari snorkel Reply-To: dtlc@helios.net On 20 Mar 2004 at 12:03, Sean Bybee wrote: > > What about pointing out the fact that a) an OEM Toyota version exist > > till this very day, and b) that this OEM Toyota version isn't even > > waterproof? (and only available with dust/cyclone filter AFAIK). > > Is the safari snorkel waterproof? Yep, aftermarket was designed that way. See article/URL I mentioned, that discussion involved the difference between OEM and aftermarket. (though it might be quite easy to waterproof the OEM snorkel, not sure) -- Bye, Willem-Jan Markerink The desire to understand is sometimes far less intelligent than the inability to understand [note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!] From: stwalsh@uniserve.com To: Subject: Re: [DTLC] need snorkel help Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2004 17:35:54 -0800 Reply-To: dtlc@helios.net > -----Original Message----- > From: dtlc-owner@helios.net [mailto:dtlc-owner@helios.net] On Behalf Of > woodmansee > Sent: March 20, 2004 10:00 AM > To: dtlc@helios.net > Subject: Re: [DTLC] need snorkel help > > > What about pointing out the fact that a) an OEM Toyota version exist > > till this very day, and > > have you an official toyota link that clearly states the snorkel is > manufacturer? even then, my snorkels are after market, but still, it would > make a good point next time i have to testify..... I have a brand new factory Toyota J7 snorkel in my garage, would you like pics of it to show them. I can also try and forward the Japan EPC diagrams. It has a Hat on the dust to spin out large particulate, it does not look to me that Toyota designed it so that you could drive through 5' of water. Sheldon 13B-T powered 86 BJ70 Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2004 20:41:01 -0900 From: Sean Bybee Subject: Re: [DTLC] need snorkel help...now safari snorkel To: dtlc@helios.net Reply-To: dtlc@helios.net > Yep, aftermarket was designed that way. > See article/URL I mentioned, that discussion involved the difference What link was that? Don't remember, was it your site? Sean From: w.j.markerink@a1.nl To: dtlc@helios.net Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 22:47:01 +0100 Subject: Re: [DTLC] need snorkel help...now safari snorkel Reply-To: dtlc@helios.net On 20 Mar 2004 at 20:41, Sean Bybee wrote: > > Yep, aftermarket was designed that way. > > See article/URL I mentioned, that discussion involved the difference > > What link was that? Don't remember, was it your site? Never delete old messages....;)) http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/tlcsnork.txt -- Bye, Willem-Jan Markerink The desire to understand is sometimes far less intelligent than the inability to understand [note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!] From: "woodmansee" To: Subject: snorkel ban help Re: [DTLC] need snorkel help Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 16:04:44 -0600 Reply-To: dtlc@helios.net got a phone call from Jim Jackson president of ARB USA today in regards to my plea for help in fighting this proposed snorkel ban. I am impressed by the quick response and earnest desire to help which i wanted to share with all you folks especially with the recent discussions about customer service. i sure hope that whatever he and his company can offer will help, wish me luck, i think i testify again before the senate this thursday though i would prefer it were next week, i am still reeling from three long days of grueling hearings last week and was looking forward to a break this week :( >From: "woodmansee" >Reply-To: dtlc@helios.net >To: >Subject: [DTLC] need snorkel help >Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2004 10:11:31 -0600 > >hi all, > >i am getting clobbered here at capitol hill. a bill that just left the >senate environment committee has a paragraph in it about off highway >vehicles may not operate off road on state lands with an air intake more >than 6 inches above manufacturer original. i got up and testified last >monday that the reason i have a snorkel o my truck is not for illegal deep >water crossings but to get more, cleaner, and colder air for the better >health and improved performance of my deisel engine. can someone please >send me some links to websites that i can refer senators to next week as i >go back to lobby more that explains/documents these reasons for snorkels >(that do not refer to any water crossing abilities preferably)...... > >thanks, > >alex w. >minnesota From: "Jeff Zepp" To: Subject: Re: snorkel ban help Re: [DTLC] need snorkel help Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 23:53:24 -0700 Reply-To: dtlc@helios.net Alex, your original post has been forwarded to Carla Boucher, the lawyer/lobbiest for United 4WD Association. She is inside the beltway and should be able to help out in this. Part of my Rising Sun dues goes to pay her salary with our club UFWDA membership. If you don't hear from her in the next couple days let me know and we'll go from there. Jeff Zepp -----Original Message----- From: woodmansee To: dtlc@helios.net Date: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 3:04 PM Subject: snorkel ban help Re: [DTLC] need snorkel help >got a phone call from Jim Jackson president of ARB USA today in regards to >my plea for help in fighting this proposed snorkel ban. > >I am impressed by the quick response and earnest desire to help which i >wanted to share with all you folks especially with the recent discussions >about customer service. > >i sure hope that whatever he and his company can offer will help, wish me >luck, i think i testify again before the senate this thursday though i would >prefer it were next week, i am still reeling from three long days of >grueling hearings last week and was looking forward to a break this week :( From: "woodmansee" To: Subject: Re: snorkel ban help Re: [DTLC] need snorkel help Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 09:26:19 -0600 Reply-To: dtlc@helios.net thanks Jeff, and as our state's association is also a member and some of our guys have been talking to UFWDAs as well, hopefully something helpful wil come of it all. this snorkel ban is only a small part of what we have been battling, but things are looking up, the first six forests to have been closed by the DNR to trucks (yet ATVs and off-highway motorcycles got over 240 miles of trails in them) have been sent back for review to see why were locked out and hopefully this should mean some changes to our benefit. but apart from what we work on with the DNR we have to deal with our legislature right now who are clueless about what we really are and what our needs are and they think of all as big "mudder" trucks which they don't want is in the state forests, session is supposed to end by easter, so we are really scrambling here..... ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeff Zepp" To: Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 12:53 AM Subject: Re: snorkel ban help Re: [DTLC] need snorkel help > Alex, your original post has been forwarded to Carla Boucher, the > lawyer/lobbiest for United 4WD Association. She is inside the beltway and > should be able to help out in this. Part of my Rising Sun dues goes to pay > her salary with our club UFWDA membership. If you don't hear from her in the > next couple days let me know and we'll go from there. > > Jeff Zepp > > -----Original Message----- > From: woodmansee > To: dtlc@helios.net > Date: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 3:04 PM > Subject: snorkel ban help Re: [DTLC] need snorkel help > > > >got a phone call from Jim Jackson president of ARB USA today in regards to > >my plea for help in fighting this proposed snorkel ban. > > > >I am impressed by the quick response and earnest desire to help which i > >wanted to share with all you folks especially with the recent discussions > >about customer service. > > > >i sure hope that whatever he and his company can offer will help, wish me > >luck, i think i testify again before the senate this thursday though i > would > >prefer it were next week, i am still reeling from three long days of > >grueling hearings last week and was looking forward to a break this week :( > > From: "woodmansee" To: Subject: Re: snorkel ban help Re: [DTLC] need snorkel help Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 09:26:13 -0600 Reply-To: dtlc@helios.net ARB USA's letter came today, fast and professional, hope it helps. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeff Zepp" To: Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 12:53 AM Subject: Re: snorkel ban help Re: [DTLC] need snorkel help > Alex, your original post has been forwarded to Carla Boucher, the > lawyer/lobbiest for United 4WD Association. She is inside the beltway and > should be able to help out in this. Part of my Rising Sun dues goes to pay > her salary with our club UFWDA membership. If you don't hear from her in the > next couple days let me know and we'll go from there. > > Jeff Zepp > > -----Original Message----- > From: woodmansee > To: dtlc@helios.net > Date: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 3:04 PM > Subject: snorkel ban help Re: [DTLC] need snorkel help > > > >got a phone call from Jim Jackson president of ARB USA today in regards to > >my plea for help in fighting this proposed snorkel ban. > > > >I am impressed by the quick response and earnest desire to help which i > >wanted to share with all you folks especially with the recent discussions > >about customer service. > > > >i sure hope that whatever he and his company can offer will help, wish me > >luck, i think i testify again before the senate this thursday though i > would > >prefer it were next week, i am still reeling from three long days of > >grueling hearings last week and was looking forward to a break this week :( > > From: w.j.markerink@a1.nl To: dtlc@helios.net Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 22:24:04 +0100 Subject: Re: snorkel ban help Re: [DTLC] need snorkel help Reply-To: dtlc@helios.net Cc: 80scool@yahoogroups.com On 24 Mar 2004 at 9:26, woodmansee wrote: You probably can thank George Couyant from the 80's list (I CC'd it there) for the ARB interference....;)) > ARB USA's letter came today, fast and professional, hope it helps. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jeff Zepp" > To: > Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 12:53 AM > Subject: Re: snorkel ban help Re: [DTLC] need snorkel help > > > > Alex, your original post has been forwarded to Carla Boucher, the > > lawyer/lobbiest for United 4WD Association. She is inside the beltway and > > should be able to help out in this. Part of my Rising Sun dues goes to pay > > her salary with our club UFWDA membership. If you don't hear from her in the > > next couple days let me know and we'll go from there. > > > > Jeff Zepp > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: woodmansee > > To: dtlc@helios.net > > Date: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 3:04 PM > > Subject: snorkel ban help Re: [DTLC] need snorkel help > > > > > > >got a phone call from Jim Jackson president of ARB USA today in regards to > > >my plea for help in fighting this proposed snorkel ban. > > > > > >I am impressed by the quick response and earnest desire to help which i > > >wanted to share with all you folks especially with the recent discussions > > >about customer service. > > > > > >i sure hope that whatever he and his company can offer will help, wish me > > >luck, i think i testify again before the senate this thursday though i > > would > > >prefer it were next week, i am still reeling from three long days of > > >grueling hearings last week and was looking forward to a break this week :( > > > > > -- Bye, Willem-Jan Markerink The desire to understand is sometimes far less intelligent than the inability to understand [note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!] From: "woodmansee" To: Cc: <80scool@yahoogroups.com> Subject: Re: snorkel ban help Re: [DTLC] need snorkel help Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 15:49:50 -0600 Reply-To: dtlc@helios.net > You probably can thank George Couyant from the 80's list (I CC'd it > there) for the ARB interference....;)) actually probably not, i called ARB USA on monday and the rep put me through to the pres. and I left him a voice mail. he then called me back tuesday and asked me to e-mail him all the details which i did same day. then this morning in e-mail i had my official ARB letter. still no sign that the bill is being heard in finance committee this week, so i may have a while longer to prepare! on monday before calling ARB USA i sent an internet form in to ARB OZ asking for the same help and still have not yet heard back, so... well, i supose i will chalk it up to the phone being a better way of getting what you want than e-mails and not blame it on foreign customer service... i knew that the minute they saw my US address on that internet form they would have forwarded my inquiry to ARB USA anyway, and i couldn't wait that long... ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Cc: <80scool@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 3:24 PM Subject: Re: snorkel ban help Re: [DTLC] need snorkel help > On 24 Mar 2004 at 9:26, woodmansee wrote: > > You probably can thank George Couyant from the 80's list (I CC'd it > there) for the ARB interference....;)) > > > ARB USA's letter came today, fast and professional, hope it helps. From: "woodmansee" To: Cc: , Subject: [DTLC] snorkel ban update Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2004 08:17:42 -0600 Reply-To: dtlc@helios.net well, another rotten day at the capitol yesterday... to skip to the snorkel issue, my Senator is on board for fighting it, but the committee wouldn't even hear the issue, they say it is not the right time/place, it should be talked about one the floor or in conference committee... after the hearing i spent a great deal of time talking to the environmentalist who is the one who hand feeds the bill's author all of the ideas for this hideous piece of legislation. he understands where i am coming from and empathizes, i feel he genuinely understands that my snorkel is for on-road use for technical reasons, but he is still too afraid of all the people who will continue illegal water and wetlands crossings because of the capability of their machine due to snorkels. he threw me a bone though and offered me a grandfather clause. i guess i look at it as this, if i was able to get that much out of the toughest and most well respected environmental advocate in the state then i think i have a darn good chance at beating this thing completely either on the senate floor or in the conference committee.... i'll continue to keep you all updated, thanks, alex w. Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2004 16:58:09 GMT To: dtlc@helios.net Cc: woodmansee@ll.net Subject: Re: [DTLC] snorkel ban update From: Julian Voelcker Reply-To: dtlc@helios.net OK, being based in the UK this doesn't really affect me, but I am extremely surprised that someone would be able to get away with it in the US. > but he is still too afraid of all > the people who will continue illegal water and wetlands crossings because of > the capability of their machine due to snorkels. His argument runs along the same lines as banning guns because some irresponsible people use them to murder each other or banning cars because some irresponsible people run over other people with them. Are there any civil rights issues here that you can pursue? Have you thought of throwing up a website or some forums to encourage some more specific feedback? Willem-Jan has done a pretty good job about cross posting some of your messages to the 80s list, however it is a bit difficult to follow and add to the arguments reading your occasional messages. Also, try to get a message posted onto the LCML list - there are a lot of US based cruiser owners on it who I am sure would be keen to pitch in. You can subscribe at http://www.birfield.com/mailman/listinfo/landcruisers There are also some more lists at: http://lists.off-road.com/mailman/listinfo Good luck with it. Cheers, Julian Voelcker julian@tvw.net Cirencester, United Kingdom Reply-To: dtlc@helios.net From: "The Penners" To: Subject: Re: [DTLC] snorkel ban update Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2004 11:19:50 -0700 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Julian Voelcker" Subject: Re: [DTLC] snorkel ban update > > but he is still too afraid of all > > the people who will continue illegal water and wetlands crossings because of > > the capability of their machine due to snorkels. > > His argument runs along the same lines as banning guns because some > irresponsible people use them to murder each other or banning cars because > some irresponsible people run over other people with them. Well said. It $%##*# me off when any group , but especially governments use Band-Aid solutions and think they are accomplishing something. The problem is illegal water crossings. The key word here is "illegal". To think that this illegal activity will end just because they have banned snorkels is naive. Closing trails that lead to the water crossings, signage, opening alternate routes, enforcing the laws that are already in place, or modifying them to discourage the activity, are some possible answers. Working in partnership with responsible users, higher fines to help fund enforcement and education surrounding these delicate issues seems more appropriate and constructive. I know enforcement is costly in remote areas, but banning snorkels does nothing except waste peoples time and valuable tax dollars and will be equally unenforceable. For the most part I have found the idiots that are doing illegal crossings and other similarly damaging activities are the ones that are stuck in the middle of the water, leaking fuel and oil, beer in hand without a clue as to what they are doing. These people need deterrents and education. Just my penny's worth. End of rant. Roy From: "woodmansee" To: Subject: NEED MORE HELP! Re: [DTLC] snorkel ban update Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2004 12:35:55 -0600 Reply-To: dtlc@helios.net My senator wants me to try to work things out with the author of the bill and does not like the idea of proposing a line item delete of the snorkel ban, weird how law makers look at proposed laws as proprietary. He has also asked me for more information. He wants to know if there have been studies done that show the benefits of snorkels. Are there any actual studies that show that the air a snorkel provides an engine is actually cleaner, colder, and more? Are there studies that show that snorkels extend life of an engine, or that snorkels do really improve fuel economy? Please point me in the right direction for this info, I have e-mailed this same request to ARB USA president as well..... From: "woodmansee" To: Subject: [DTLC] snorkel ban help Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 08:19:12 -0600 Reply-To: dtlc@helios.net 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 Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2004 09:39:02 -0600 From: Reid Anderson Subject: Re: [DTLC] snorkel ban help To: dtlc@helios.net Reply-To: dtlc@helios.net "woodmansee" wrote: > 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 The easier this is for people to do, the more people will do it. So if you wish, copy and paste my message or use it to get ideas of what to write. Here it is....(in all it's run-on sentence glory ;-) --------------------------------- Senator Frederickson, I strongly disagree with the idea of banning vehicle snorkles simply because a minority group of unethical people misuse one of the many functions a snorkel can serve when they use them to aide in crossing streams illegally. As such, I request that you do a line item delete on the snorkel ban language in SF 2793. Thanks you... E. Reid Anderson ----------------------------- Hope you all will write.... Reid From: Willem-Jan Markerink To: sen.dennis.frederickson@senate.mn Subject: SF 2793 / snorkel ban Bcc: woodmansee Reply-to: w.j.markerink@a1.nl Date: Sat, 03 Apr 2004 02:14:36 +0200 Dear Senator Frederickson, I am appalled to learn that you will support and defend bill SF 2793 in its current form, which effectively bans snorkels on all vehicles, for the sole purpose of preventing water-crossings. I ask you strongly to delete this item from your bill, for the following reasons: Snorkels were NOT invented for water crossings, but to keep dust out of the air intake, and get a significant temperature drop as well. For this temperature factory, it has become mandatory equipment for intercooler installations on turbodiesels in Australia. And to stress my non-waterproof argument, neither Toyota nor Mercedes/Unimog considers their snorkels as waterproof, they do NOT raise the official fording depth.... http://www.mercedes-benz.com/omb/e/ecars/unimog/uhn_anw_orf.htm (fording depth 1.20m, air intake at least 3m high) ....while at the same time BOTH manufacturers would nullify your bill, since their snorkel is either default (Unimog) or optional (Toyota) *factory* equipment! Please do not support ill-conceived laws, for he sole purpose of pleasing the environmentalists. You will punish many car owners who have no intention whatsoever to cross water. Surely this is not in your interest of maintaining support for the environment either. Please reconsider, and delete this item from your bill. From: w.j.markerink@a1.nl To: 80scool_usa@yahoogroups.com Date: Sat, 03 Apr 2004 18:50:49 +0200 Subject: Re: [DTLC] snorkel ban help / Minnesota Reply-To: dtlc@helios.net Cc: landcruisers@birfield.com, 80scool@yahoogroups.com, dtlc@helios.net On 2 Apr 2004 at 16:45, Dat Tran wrote: > This is the link and original text pertaining to the snorkel ban. Sounds > like they really want you to get stuck in deep water. The bill may also > become part of another bill, which is often done to ensure passage. > > The term "off-highway" may exempt street-legal rigs, for now. If snorkels > are banned for off-road vehicles, highwayl rigs can't be far behind. > > http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/cgi-bin/getbill.pl?number=SF2793&session=ls83&version=latest&session_number=0&session_year=2004 Or.... http://makeashorterlink.com/?O5B322DE7 ....for those struggling with line-breaks in their reader....;)) > 2.10 (c) A person may not operate an off-highway vehicle > 2.11 off-road on public land or public waters with an air intake pipe > 2.12 that is more than six inches above the manufacturer's original > 2.13 air-intake pipe. -- Bye, Willem-Jan Markerink The desire to understand is sometimes far less intelligent than the inability to understand [note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!] To: 80scool@yahoogroups.com From: "John Powers" Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2004 18:36:42 -0000 Subject: Re: [80] Snorkel legislation in the US - HELP Reply-To: 80scool@yahoogroups.com --- In 80scool@yahoogroups.com, Reid Anderson wrote: > More help is needed on the snorkel ban issue. > > On DTLC woodmansee" wrote: > > > > i don't > > care where you are, to e-mail Senator Frederickson > > sen.dennis.frederickson@s... 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 > Just called the above number, reached an assistant. I asked that the Senator do a line-item delete, the ass't told me that the Sen had "no intentions" of doing the delete. :( Who is this idiot, anyway?? To: <80scool@yahoogroups.com> From: Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 12:51:02 -0600 Subject: RE: [80] Snorkel legislation in the US - HELP Reply-To: 80scool@yahoogroups.com Is this federal, state, what? Is this guy a state or federal senator, what is the docket number, give us a clue as to how to help. Jack '93 -----Original Message----- From: John Powers [mailto:njpowers@pacbell.net] Sent: Friday, April 02, 2004 12:37 PM To: 80scool@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [80] Snorkel legislation in the US - HELP --- In 80scool@yahoogroups.com, Reid Anderson wrote: > More help is needed on the snorkel ban issue. On DTLC woodmansee" wrote: > > > > i don't > > care where you are, to e-mail Senator Frederickson > > sen.dennis.frederickson@s... 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 > Just called the above number, reached an assistant. I asked that the Senator do a line-item delete, the ass't told me that the Sen had "no intentions" of doing the delete. :( Who is this idiot, anyway?? To: 80scool@yahoogroups.com From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Alvaro_Rodr=EDguez?= Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 11:34:53 -0800 Subject: Re: [80] Snorkel legislation in the US - HELP Reply-To: 80scool@yahoogroups.com Jack, I did a search on Google and this came up: http://www.dennisfrederickson.org/League_Conserv_Voters.htm http://www.senate.leg.state.mn.us/members/sendis21.htm Regards Alvaro On Apr 2, 2004, at 10:51 AM, nicholsjg@charter.net wrote: > Is this federal, state, what? Is this guy a state or federal senator,=20 > what > is the docket number, give us a clue as to how to help. > > Jack > '93 -------------------------------------------------- Alvaro Rodr=EDguez 96 FZJ80 "La Cabra" TCLA #12833 Sacramento, CA web: http://homepage.mac.com/alvarorb e-mail: alvarorb@mac.com To: <80scool@yahoogroups.com> From: Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 14:56:02 -0600 Subject: RE: [80] Snorkel legislation in the US - HELP Reply-To: 80scool@yahoogroups.com Go get them, Greg. Jack -----Original Message----- From: Alvaro Rodr=EDguez [mailto:alvarorb@mac.com] Sent: Friday, April 02, 2004 1:35 PM To: 80scool@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [80] Snorkel legislation in the US - HELP Jack, I did a search on Google and this came up: http://www.dennisfrederickson.org/League_Conserv_Voters.htm http://www.senate.leg.state.mn.us/members/sendis21.htm Regards Alvaro On Apr 2, 2004, at 10:51 AM, nicholsjg@charter.net wrote: > Is this federal, state, what? Is this guy a state or federal senator, > what To: 80scool@yahoogroups.com From: "danamotors" Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2004 21:30:59 -0000 Subject: Re: [80] Snorkel legislation in the US - HELP Reply-To: 80scool@yahoogroups.com He's a Minnesota state senator. this proposed law is a State of Minnesota law, it won't affect us directly in the other states, but that's not the point. It is a "crack in the dam" so to speak, and we really don't want that to happen. wrote: > Is this federal, state, what? Is this guy a state or federal senator, what > is the docket number, give us a clue as to how to help. > > Jack > '93 To: 80scool@yahoogroups.com From: Reid Anderson Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2004 17:42:44 -0600 Subject: Re: [80] Snorkel legislation in the US - HELP Reply-To: 80scool@yahoogroups.com > Is this federal, state, what? Is this guy a state or federal senator, what > is the docket number, give us a clue as to how to help. > > Jack > '93 Jack, Sorry it took me so long to respond... I don't know too much about this, but I believe it only affects MN. However, as someone said, any sort of legislation of this nature, regardless of the range of applicability, is bad. If you wish to obtain more info, woodmansee (the gentleman fighting this legislation on Capitol Hill) posts from woodmansee@ll.net . Reid To: <80scool_aus@yahoogroups.com> Cc: <80scool_usa@yahoogroups.com> From: "George Couyant" Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 08:54:24 +1100 Subject: [80_usa] Re: [80_aus] Snorkel legislation in the US Reply-To: 80scool_usa@yahoogroups.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "danamotors" > Hi all. I found this on another diesel list. Does anyone have > anything that can help us folks here in the USA to keep our > snorkels? They are being thretatened by silly legislation. The standard factory air intake on both the 80 and 100 Series is essentially at roof height and above the top of the A pillar. Throughout much of the world these vehicles were shipped with the optional lowered intake to reduce cost to the price conscious American market. In other words, the factory has a snorkel option and it could be argued that this is the height of the standard air intake. Cheers gc '97 HDJ80 - Melbourne Oz '03 Prado To: 80scool_usa@yahoogroups.com From: Kumar Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2004 17:51:14 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [80_usa] Snorkel legislation in the US Reply-To: 80scool_usa@yahoogroups.com man, this is so freakin' frusrating. more than half of those that own snorkels don't even cross water, they just want "cool" factor. geez. It's not even a safety issue having a snorkel. Here's one for the bill initiator..."by use of the snorkel, the air filter stays cleaner longer thus less impact to our landfills". That's about as sensible as their concerns of individuals with snorkals going through water and causing environmental impact. ...next thing ya know, they'll close all off road (which they are trying)...time to donate to blue ribbon. Kumar --- danamotors wrote: > > From : woodmansee > Reply-To : dtlc@helios.net > Sent : Thursday, April 1, 2004 6:35 PM > To : > Subject : NEED MORE HELP! Re: [DTLC] snorkel ban > update > > > My senator wants me to try to work things out with > the author of the > bill > and does not like the idea of proposing a line item > delete of the > snorkel > ban, weird how law makers look at proposed laws as > proprietary. He > has also > asked me for more information. He wants to know if > there have been > studies > done that show the benefits of snorkels. Are there > any actual > studies that > show that the air a snorkel provides an engine is > actually cleaner, > colder, > and more? Are there studies that show that snorkels > extend life of > an > engine, or that snorkels do really improve fuel > economy? Please > point me > in the right direction for this info, I have > e-mailed this same > request to > ARB USA president as well..... > > > To: <80scool_usa@yahoogroups.com> From: "Andrew Zook" Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 15:34:44 -0500 Subject: Re: [80_usa] (Fwd) snorkel ban help / Minnesota Reply-To: 80scool_usa@yahoogroups.com Is there a link to this bill on the internet? What else is in the bill? Why would they care about snorkles? Have you listed it on the PBB? CAZ > 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 To: 80scool_usa@yahoogroups.com From: "Dat Tran" Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2004 13:31:25 -0800 Subject: RE: [80_usa] (Fwd) snorkel ban help / Minnesota Reply-To: 80scool_usa@yahoogroups.com Well, in addition to the technical issues you raised with snorkel enable engine to breath cleaner and cooler air. If they are worried that snorkels will allow people to cross water illegally, well, people will cross water if there's no enforcement. Legal or illegal. With snorkels, those rigs will enter and quickly clear the water. Without them, some rigs will get stuck and sit there to be washed clean until removed. How do the enviro-advocates tackle that? Do they want rigs to be stuck in water releasing oil and other harmful fluids into the water or do they want clean, safe crossing? Remind they that snorkels were invented to save the environment in countries like Australia and those in South America and Africa. How about allowing certain water crossing only for rigs with snorkels? To: 80scool_usa@yahoogroups.com From: "Dat Tran" Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2004 16:45:39 -0800 Subject: Re: [80_usa] (Fwd) snorkel ban help / Minnesota Reply-To: 80scool_usa@yahoogroups.com This is the link and original text pertaining to the snorkel ban. Sounds like they really want you to get stuck in deep water. The bill may also become part of another bill, which is often done to ensure passage. The term "off-highway" may exempt street-legal rigs, for now. If snorkels are banned for off-road vehicles, highwayl rigs can't be far behind. http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/cgi-bin/getbill.pl?number=3DSF2793&session=3Dls83&version=3Dlatest&session_number=3D0&session_year=3D2004 2.10 (c) A person may not operate an off-highway vehicle 2.11 off-road on public land or public waters with an air intake pipe 2.12 that is more than six inches above the manufacturer's original 2.13 air-intake pipe. To: 80scool_usa@yahoogroups.com From: "danamotors" Date: Sat, 03 Apr 2004 01:35:23 -0000 Subject: Re: [80_usa] (Fwd) snorkel ban help / Minnesota Reply-To: 80scool_usa@yahoogroups.com Andrew, I posted the following to a local 80-series group. I don't know the verbiage of the bill, nor do I know the contents of the rest of the bill. BTW, this is a Minnesota bill, affecting only MN at this time. Dana >>>>> Alex Woodmansee lives in Minnesota, she is a die-hard diesel cruiserhead. Apparently, a law has been introduced into the Senate to outlaw all Snorkels on offroad vehicles. Apparently the greenies have got some pictures of several people on ATV's, Jeeps, Whatevers, crossing some streams using the benefit of the snorkels to cross deeper streams than they would otherwise be able. This is bad for the environment, because it allows dirt/oil/grunge, etc to contaminate the waters, and it also disrupts the streambed, increasing siltation which kills salmon, etc. So they say. Anyway, she has single-handedly been fighting this proposed outright ban on snorkels. She's been emailing the LCML and DTLC lists trying to enlist other cruiserheads to her cause, which is to persuade the authors of this bill to delete the snorkel ban from it's language. It's in our interests to assist her here, because if they get this ban passed, we won't be able to have snorkels on our trucks, even if you never got your tires wet!! Also, and more importantly, it sets a horrible precedent. The greenies hate us, they want to lock down all the great outdoors to offroading, so they will attempt at every turn to stop us. This will open the door to other bans, for example: large tires (they damage the fragile soil), large bumpers (they damage the surrounding bush when you hit them), lockers (they allow you to go places you otherwise couldn't, so that's bad), and other equipment that we all take for granted. You get the idea. So please do send a little note to Senator Fredrickson at his email address below. I did, urging him to severely target the offenders, rather than imposing an outright ban of snorkels, which punishes all for the sins of a few. Dana >>>>>> , "Andrew Zook" wrote: > Is there a link to this bill on the internet? What else is in the bill? Why > would they care about snorkles? Have you listed it on the PBB? > > CAZ > To: <80scool_usa@yahoogroups.com> From: "Andrew Zook" Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 23:08:50 -0500 Subject: Re: [80_usa] (Fwd) snorkel ban help / Minnesota Reply-To: 80scool_usa@yahoogroups.com After reading it, it looks like it is talking about ATVs to me! I don't think it applies to snorkels on "on road" vehicles. I doubt that they even know such a thing exists. CAZ > http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/cgi-bin/getbill.pl?number=SF2793&sessionls83&version=latest&session_number=0&session_year=2004 > > 2.10 (c) A person may not operate an off-highway vehicle > 2.11 off-road on public land or public waters with an air intake pipe > 2.12 that is more than six inches above the manufacturer's original > 2.13 air-intake pipe. To: 80scool_usa@yahoogroups.com From: "danamotors" Date: Sat, 03 Apr 2004 08:03:01 -0000 Subject: Re: [80_usa] (Fwd) snorkel ban help / Minnesota Reply-To: 80scool_usa@yahoogroups.com Here in California, an "offroad vehicle" is any vehicle that is used for offroading only, and is not allowed to be driven on, nor is it licensed for, on road use. This can be a motorcycle, an ATV, or a LandCruiser. Think of the "trailer queens" that get towed to the various offroading events, and you've got another form of "offroad vehicle". I not familiar with the MN laws on "offroad vehicle". "Andrew Zook" wrote: > After reading it, it looks like it is talking about ATVs to me! > I don't think it applies to snorkels on "on road" vehicles. I doubt that > they even know such a thing exists. > > CAZ > > > > http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/cgi-bin/getbill.pl?number=SF2793&session= > ls83&version=latest&session_number=0&session_year=2004 > > > > 2.10 (c) A person may not operate an off-highway vehicle > > 2.11 off-road on public land or public waters with an air intake pipe > > 2.12 that is more than six inches above the manufacturer's original > > 2.13 air-intake pipe. To: 80scool_usa@yahoogroups.com From: John Yang Date: Sat, 3 Apr 2004 04:30:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [80_usa] (Fwd) snorkel ban help / Minnesota Reply-To: 80scool_usa@yahoogroups.com Try looking up some of the Paris-Dakar racing team and their vehicle specs. Most of the vehicle raced there are 4WD setup to rally and high-speed offroad. They almost all have snorkel for the dust control and NOT water crossing. John To: <80scool_usa_norcal@yahoogroups.com> Cc: "!80sCool USA List" <80scool_usa@yahoogroups.com> From: "Derek Lee" Date: Sat, 3 Apr 2004 08:52:29 -0800 Subject: [80_usa] RE: [80scool_usa_norcal] Re: Fwd: [80] Snorkel legislation in the US - HELP Reply-To: 80scool_usa@yahoogroups.com Warning, this will be somewhat political and may offend some people... I hate politicians. They use the same tactics for everything, in an effort to quickly pass useless legislation that only harms the law-abiding but makes it seem as if they are getting something done come election time. This is just like how they did the ban on "assault" weapons (which is itself a misnomer since the DoD designation of an "assault" weapon means select fire, AKA full-auto or burst, under which category none of the affected firearms falls under - but "assault" sounds more ominous to the uneducated sheeple that is the general populace of the U.S.). They were then (and are again) trying to make a useless ban based on features. - A flash hider (huh?) - A bayonet lug (because there is such a rash of drive-by bayonetings) - A collapsible stock (supposedly makes them easier to conceal, though in reality that is a crock, plus, that's not why the military ever wanted collapsible/folding stocks; concealability had nothing to do with it) - A pistol grip (let's make it as un-ergonomic to fire as possible) - A detachable magazine (encourages the "spray-n-pray" of schoolyards everywhere). So now they're after something else, off-roading. Soon we might be labeled as evil "Off-Roaders" driving evil "Urban Assault Vechicles." It might go something like this: - Snorkels (encourage deep water crossings that pollute the rivers of America) - Winches (encourage "off-roaders" to venture deeper into unspoiled wilderness areas without fear of getting stuck) - Mud-terrain tires (seriously tear up wilderness trails that should be left to hikers and other non-offensive people) - Bullbars, sliders, and steel rear bumpers (cause unnecessary damage to struck pedestrians and other vehicles) - Aux. fuel tanks (turn the vehicle into a moving bomb) - Weight limitations (because we all know that heavier vehicles use up our petroleum reserves and increase pollution) Etc. ad nauseum... Remember the "slippery slope" that most people scoff at? It is alive and well in U.S. politics. I will be calling this senator Monday morning. Hey, where's Paul Otto? He's a Minnesotan now! ________________________________ Derek Lee `94 FZJ80 + stuff `97 FZJ80 Collectors Ed., stock Elk Grove, CA, USA > -----Original Message----- > It's in our interests to assist her here, because if they get this > ban passed, we won't be able to have snorkels on our trucks, even if > you never got your tires wet!! Also, and more importantly, it sets > a horrible precedent. The greenies hate us, they want to lock down > all the great outdoors to offroading, so they will attempt at every > turn to stop us. This will open the door to other bans, for > example: large tires (they damage the fragile soil), large bumpers > (they damage the surrounding bush when you hit them), lockers (they > allow you to go places you otherwise couldn't, so that's bad), and > other equipment that we all take for granted. You get the idea. From: "Kief and Jen Noble" To: , Subject: [LCML] Snorkel villification Sender: landcruisers-admin@birfield.com Reply-To: landcruisers@birfield.com Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 19:55:56 -0800 I think a valid point that needs to be made about snorkels is that hobbyists and professional drivers utilize snorkels to relocate the air intake above dust and dirt. Manufacturers such as Isuzu, GMC, Hino, Nissan utilize elevated air intakes incorporate this into their design for practical reasons. Air intake in the engine compartment is actually the worst place but is done so for asthetics. The cooling fan on dusty roads can create just as much dust as the actual motion of the vehicle. Such a rediculous law is a waste of valuable time, considering they are only in session six months out of the year. Thanks Alex W. for your effort. This is a sneaky assault on ORV's that I am sure is one of many more to come. Kief. From: "Willem-Jan Markerink" To: landcruisers@birfield.com Subject: Re: [LCML] Snorkel villification Reply-To: landcruisers@birfield.com Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 19:44:00 +0100 On 21 Mar 2004 at 19:55, Kief and Jen Noble wrote: > I think a valid point that needs to be made about snorkels is that > hobbyists and professional drivers utilize snorkels to relocate the > air intake above dust and dirt. Manufacturers such as Isuzu, GMC, > Hino, Nissan utilize elevated air intakes incorporate this into their > design for practical reasons. Air intake in the engine compartment is > actually the worst place but is done so for asthetics. The cooling fan > on dusty roads can create just as much dust as the actual motion of > the vehicle. Intake of HJ60 and HDJ80 is inside the right fender, sucking air from below the headlights. (on FJ55 it's on top of the grille, not 'engine-bay' either) -- Bye, Willem-Jan Markerink The desire to understand is sometimes far less intelligent than the inability to understand [note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!] From: "Paul Scott" To: Subject: Re: [LCML] (Fwd) NEED MORE HELP! / snorkel ban update / US-legislation Reply-To: landcruisers@birfield.com Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2004 12:46:31 -0800 LCML Homepage: http://www.birfield.com/mailman/listinfo/landcruisers ??? What the...??? What is one good reason to ban snorkels? Are they flying off on the freeway causing accidents? Do they also ban "in-windshield" radio antennas? Or chrome handles? Or 6 lug wheels? The fact that somewhere, someone feels the need to dictate, micromanage, all these small immaterial points of life just steams me. It's no wonder people die fighting for liberty. Paul Reno From: Kemasa To: landcruisers@birfield.com, "Paul Scott" Subject: Re: [LCML] (Fwd) NEED MORE HELP! / snorkel ban update / US-legislation Reply-To: landcruisers@birfield.com Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2004 13:02:03 -0800 On Thursday 01 April 2004 12:46 pm, Paul Scott wrote: > LCML Homepage: http://www.birfield.com/mailman/listinfo/landcruisers > > ??? What the...??? > > What is one good reason to ban snorkels? Are they flying off on the > freeway causing accidents? > > Do they also ban "in-windshield" radio antennas? Or chrome handles? Or 6 > lug wheels? > > The fact that somewhere, someone feels the need to dictate, micromanage, > all these small immaterial points of life just steams me. > > It's no wonder people die fighting for liberty. EXACTLY!!! Snorkels are very useful with stream crossings, but instead of having to justify why you should be allowed to have one, they should have to justify why you should not be allowed to have it. If they feel the need to ban something, why not ban those spinner wheels which made it much harder to determine if a vehicle is starting to move or not. One could also wonder what would happen if the bearing seized. They might be able to justify that more than a snorkel (and they should have to justify it). -- Kemasa. Simi Valley, CA, USA 1993 Land Cruiser, factory lockers 1995 Tacoma xtra cab 4wd 1965 Mustang convertible From: James Henry To: landcruisers@birfield.com Subject: Re: [LCML] (Fwd) NEED MORE HELP! / snorkel ban update / US-legislation Reply-To: landcruisers@birfield.com Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2004 14:13:11 -0700 I think that it has more to do with the fact that a snorkel allows you to drive through places where you couldn't normally drive with out a snorkel. I was reading the article. Aparantly, there are some ya-hoos who are driving through, and tearing up, some protected wetland areas. These area's would normally not be accessable without the snorkel. I guess that the damage was significant enough to warrant legislation against snorkels. I think it's lame. But it's yet another example how the actions of a few idiots will determine the access availability to the rest of us... -James H. > > EXACTLY!!! > > Snorkels are very useful with stream crossings, but instead of having to > justify why you should be allowed to have one, they should have to justify > why you should not be allowed to have it. > > If they feel the need to ban something, why not ban those spinner wheels > which made it much harder to determine if a vehicle is starting to move or > not. One could also wonder what would happen if the bearing seized. They > might be able to justify that more than a snorkel (and they should have to > justify it). -James Henry -SeldomSeen 76FJ40 -TLCA#11233 -OMERS9000ExtendedShacklesNonUSADistJimCCarb35x12.50MTRSSagPSLockRight -RDB's Coming soon. From: Kemasa To: landcruisers@birfield.com, James Henry Subject: Re: [LCML] (Fwd) NEED MORE HELP! / snorkel ban update / US-legislation Reply-To: landcruisers@birfield.com Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2004 13:24:22 -0800 On Thursday 01 April 2004 01:13 pm, James Henry wrote: > LCML Homepage: http://www.birfield.com/mailman/listinfo/landcruisers > > I think that it has more to do with the fact that a snorkel allows you to > drive through places where you couldn't normally drive with out a snorkel. > > I was reading the article. Aparantly, there are some ya-hoos who are > driving through, and tearing up, some protected wetland areas. These area's > would normally not be accessable without the snorkel. > I guess that the damage was significant enough to warrant legislation > against snorkels. What about vehicles which are registered in other states where it is legal to have them? Why not make it illegal to drive there? Oh, it is and the people don't care and the police don't care to deal with it, so ... > I think it's lame. But it's yet another example how the actions of a few > idiots will determine the access availability to the rest of us... Ok, then all cars should be banned since some people use them to commit crimes, including, but not limited to running people over, drunk driving and armed robbery. -- Kemasa. Simi Valley, CA, USA 1993 Land Cruiser, factory lockers 1995 Tacoma xtra cab 4wd 1965 Mustang convertible Subject: RE: [LCML] (Fwd) NEED MORE HELP! / snorkel ban update / US-legislation From: "Druin, Donald" To: Reply-To: landcruisers@birfield.com Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2004 18:35:06 -0500 As with most nee-jerk legislation like this; snorkels don't need to be banned, idiots need to be banned! How do you write that legislation? Is there an area in the US where critical wetlands/swamps are not already protected by a number of State and Federal laws? If not, they should be recommended for protection. Perhaps enforcing the existent laws would be better than writing new ones. Of course, enforcing access restrictions requires much more resources than enforcing a "Snorkel Ban". The irony here however is; if you have the money and connections and plan on developing such an area, that's perfectly fine with our current government and EPA! Think; Florida Everglades.... Don Boston -----Original Message----- From: Paul Scott [mailto:pscott@ubiquitelpcs.com] Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 3:47 PM To: landcruisers@birfield.com Subject: Re: [LCML] (Fwd) NEED MORE HELP! / snorkel ban update / US-legislation LCML Homepage: http://www.birfield.com/mailman/listinfo/landcruisers ??? What the...??? What is one good reason to ban snorkels? Are they flying off on the freeway causing accidents? Do they also ban "in-windshield" radio antennas? Or chrome handles? Or 6 lug wheels? The fact that somewhere, someone feels the need to dictate, micromanage, all these small immaterial points of life just steams me. It's no wonder people die fighting for liberty. Paul Reno From: pscottreno@charter.net Subject: RE: [LCML] (Fwd) NEED MORE HELP! / snorkel ban update / US-legislation To: landcruisers@birfield.com Reply-To: landcruisers@birfield.com Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2004 02:48:01 GMT yep, Reno. Protected wetlands only mean a slight delay for developers, and more cash for the lawyers. (snip) Is there an area in the US where critical wetlands/swamps are not already protected by a number of State and Federal laws? From: "DP" To: Subject: [LCML] Re: (Fwd) NEED MORE HELP! / snorkel ban update / US-legislation Reply-To: landcruisers@birfield.com Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 05:11:25 +0200 Surely this is a bad April fool's joke. Donald P --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.648 / Virus Database: 415 - Release Date: 3/31/2004 From: "Russ & Naomi Faulkner" To: Subject: [LCML] Snorkel Ban? Reply-To: landcruisers@birfield.com Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 06:28:23 -0800 I'm sorry, but I missed the first part on the snorkel ban. What the heck is going on? I planned on installing one on my FJ60 soon. How can this possibly relate? Thanks, Russ in Coastal Upstate California To: landcruisers@birfield.com Subject: Re: [LCML] Snorkel Ban? From: Julian Voelcker Reply-To: landcruisers@birfield.com Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2004 16:08:21 GMT Here are a couple of post from another forum that might shed some light on it. If you want more info, contact Alex directly on woodmansee@ll.net. From: "woodmansee" Subject: [DTLC] need snorkel help Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2004 10:11:31 -0600 hi all, i am getting clobbered here at capitol hill. a bill that just left the senate environment committee has a paragraph in it about off highway vehicles may not operate off road on state lands with an air intake more than 6 inches above manufacturer original. i got up and testified last monday that the reason i have a snorkel o my truck is not for illegal deep water crossings but to get more, cleaner, and colder air for the better health and improved performance of my deisel engine. can someone please send me some links to websites that i can refer senators to next week as i go back to lobby more that explains/ documents these reasons for snorkels (that do not refer to any water crossing abilities preferably)...... thanks, alex w. minnesota From: "woodmansee" Subject: [DTLC] snorkel ban update Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2004 08:17:42 -0600 well, another rotten day at the capitol yesterday... to skip to the snorkel issue, my Senator is on board for fighting it, but the committee wouldn't even hear the issue, they say it is not the right time/place, it should be talked about one the floor or in conference committee... after the hearing i spent a great deal of time talking to the environmentalist who is the one who hand feeds the bill's author all of the ideas for this hideous piece of legislation. he understands where i am coming from and empathizes, i feel he genuinely understands that my snorkel is for on-road use for technical reasons, but he is still too afraid of all the people who will continue illegal water and wetlands crossings because of the capability of their machine due to snorkels. he threw me a bone though and offered me a grandfather clause. i guess i look at it as this, if i was able to get that much out of the toughest and most well respected environmental advocate in the state then i think i have a darn good chance at beating this thing completely either on the senate floor or in the conference committee ... i'll continue to keep you all updated, thanks, alex w. From: "woodmansee" Subject: NEED MORE HELP! Re: [DTLC] snorkel ban update Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2004 12:35:55 -0600 My senator wants me to try to work things out with the author of the bill and does not like the idea of proposing a line item delete of the snorkel ban, weird how law makers look at proposed laws as proprietary. He has also asked me for more information. He wants to know if there have been studies done that show the benefits of snorkels. Are there any actual studies that show that the air a snorkel provides an engine is actually cleaner, colder, and more? Are there studies that show that snorkels extend life of an engine, or that snorkels do really improve fuel economy? Please point me in the right direction for this info, I have e-mailed this same request to ARB USA president as well .... From: "woodmansee" 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 Cheers, Julian Voelcker julian@tvw.net Cirencester, United Kingdom Subject: Re: [LCML] Snorkel Ban? From: tikiman@bighead.org To: landcruisers@birfield.com Reply-To: landcruisers@birfield.com Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 10:11:03 -0600 (CST) Done! And passed it on to a few other places as well. Later, Hunter Arend Lone Star Land Cruisers - Austin Chapter 1970 FJ55 "Elsie" 1994 FZJ80 "Prissy" 1994 FZJ80 "Dbl-D" "A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects." by R.A. Heinlein From: Larry Edlin Subject: Re: [LCML] Snorkel Ban? To: landcruisers@birfield.com Reply-To: landcruisers@birfield.com Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 08:13:00 -0800 (PST) Banning snorkles is as ludicrous as banning the tires that are used to get thru the water..... Hey, why not just ban gasoline -- then the idiots couldn't ruin anything with their rigs. - Larry --- Reid Anderson wrote: > LCML Homepage: > http://www.birfield.com/mailman/listinfo/landcruisers > > "woodmansee" wrote: > > > 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 > > > The easier this is for people to do, the more people > will do it. So if you > wish, copy and paste my message or use it to get > ideas of what to write. > Here it is....(in all it's run-on sentence glory ;-) > --------------------------------- > > Senator Frederickson, > I strongly disagree with the idea of banning > vehicle snorkles simply > because a minority group of unethical people misuse > one of the many > functions a snorkel can serve when they use them to > aide in crossing streams > illegally. > As such, I request that you do a line item > delete on the snorkel > ban language in SF 2793. > Thanks you... > E. Reid Anderson > > ----------------------------- > > Hope you all will write.... > Reid > From: MLWynn@aol.com To: landcruisers@birfield.com Subject: Re: [LCML] Snorkel Ban? Reply-To: landcruisers@birfield.com Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2004 11:45:21 -0500 Hi folks I am happy to do what I can to help stop this current round of legislative idiocy. Is this a national bill or a state bill? If national, I will get with my Representative. If state, which state and what can I do to help? Regards, Michael Wynn '93 FJZ80 (no snorkel yet) From: "Coolerman" To: Subject: RE: [LCML] Snorkel Ban? Reply-To: landcruisers@birfield.com Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 12:15:11 -0500 Done. That was easy enough... Mark Baker aka Coolerman !Oy my 2/71 FJ40 (not road legal yet) -----Original Message----- On Behalf Of Reid Anderson Subject: Re: [LCML] Snorkel Ban? The easier this is for people to do, the more people will do it. So if you wish, copy and paste my message or use it to get ideas of what to write. Here it is....(in all it's run-on sentence glory ;-) --------------------------------- Senator Frederickson, I strongly disagree with the idea of banning vehicle snorkles simply because a minority group of unethical people misuse one of the many functions a snorkel can serve when they use them to aide in crossing streams illegally. As such, I request that you do a line item delete on the snorkel ban language in SF 2793. Thanks you... From: Jeff Carlson Subject: Re: [LCML] Snorkel Ban? To: Reply-To: landcruisers@birfield.com Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 13:58:19 -0500 I sent my note to the MN Senator and have already contacted my State Senato= r and my US Congressman to ask them to keep an eye out for similar legislat= ion. The problem we run into with a bill like this is that the legislators= might get an executive summary or read through it quickly and agree with t= he major points and disregard the minor line items. I think we should all keep an eye out for this in our respective states. Jeff Carlson Sebring, FL 91 FJ80(no snorkel yet, but will be next on the list so I'm "grandfathered") 97 FZJ80 40th edition(to remain stock for now) From: Bruce Yarnall To: landcruisers@birfield.com Subject: [LCML] Snorkle ban letter - here's mine, where's yours? Reply-To: landcruisers@birfield.com Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 11:11:24 -0800 (PST) Senator Frederickson, I am not from your constituancy, so delete my email if you will. I am quite concerned about the bill you are supporting, SF 2793, that will ban snorkles on vehicles. I understand you have had problems with citizens abusing your wetlands, and I hope they are caught and punished. You already have laws that can do this. A ban on snorkles is not the way to solve this problem. Snorkles allow the users of offroad and onroad vehicles to route their air supply to any place on the body of the vehicle. It is a simple modification that can be done with dryer hose and a pipe clamp. These are not specialized devices, but a simple modification of a simple gasoline engine. If a vehicle without a snorkle is performing a legal stream crossing, and encounters high water, the vehicle will be disabled. A disabled vehicle in a stream will be disasterous for the environment in the long run (fluids, fuel, battery acid). The same vehicle with a snorkle will be able to continue operating, and most likely extricate itself from danger under it's own power. Responsible offroad drivers have gone to considerable time and expense to ensure they will have a minimal impact on the environment, and on local rescue, law enforcement, and medical resources. You must leave the responsibity for a crime in the hands of the criminals, or else they cannot be found guilty for their actions. Please consider a line-item deletion of the snorkle ban. I encourage your work to protect the wetlands and the environment, and I hope your resolve will be conveyed to my own elected officials. bruce yarnall Oregon, USA From: "Mark Janzen" To: Subject: [LCML] Snorkle Ban Sender: landcruisers-admin@birfield.com Reply-To: landcruisers@birfield.com Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 13:55:44 -0600 Comming out of Digest mode..... My name is Mark Janzen. I am a member of the MNToyx4's. I personally would like to applaud all who are trying to aid in our quest. I attended one of the senate hearings where this verbage originated and all I have to say is that it is rediculous. It's amazing how a small issue can turn into a huge one in a matter of minutes. To my knowledge it originated while talking about ATV's/ Off road bikes. Something was brought up about these vehicles having air intakes which start about 6" from the motor, and allow them to travel through the wetlands. So by their thinking, if the snorkels allow them to travel through the wetland, ban them. Stupid... It is our jobs to educate these people who represent us as to the purpose of the device in question. They obiously have no idea what they are or why they exist, so they have no issue with banning them. Alex has been working really, really hard for our sport in the state of MN. I wish I could attend more of these hearings, but I'm working 2 jobs to support my wife through graduate school, yet I am commiting my self to do what I can. We've been getting slammed in the Senate for the last year. Yet there is no end is sight. There's a message in here somewhere. Know who your reps are, and keep track of the issues at hand. We're playing catch up now, and I'd hate for anyone else to be in the same boat. We came really close to being shut out of every forest in MN, really really close. We're not out of the woods yet, but thanks to folks like Alex we may not completely loose. Once again, I send out my thanks. Mark Janzen Mpls, MN From: "James S." To: landcruisers@birfield.com Subject: RE: [LCML] Snorkel Ban? Reply-To: landcruisers@birfield.com Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 13:55:45 -0700 Hi all, Just thought I'd enter Mr. Anderson's "run-on sentence" contest. Highly worthwhile. We're drowning in ridiculous legislation in this country. What, oh it's not a contest? Well, maybe my fuming at the keyboard will invoke some ideas. Maybe a few others will take Reid's lead. James E. Reid Anderson wrote: Hope you all will write.... Reid Senator Frederickson, I very strongly disagree with any proposed legislative ban on the use of snorkels for motor vehicles. A very small minority of the OHV community are law breakers who would use snorkels for illegal water-crossings. Moreover, snorkels installed for this purpose can simply and easily be concealed. People who break laws will not be deterred by this type of legislation. The name "snorkel" certainly conjures up images of underwater exploration. A perfectly natural thought progression is for one to think of them as devices to merely facilitate sub-marine activity. This is as sensible useful as believing the majority of people that possess high-intensity spotlights are poaching game; or that bank robbers might use a GPS receiver to escape via back roads, thereby evading law enforcement, that these devices are somehow sinister. Snorkel type devices enhance the combustion engine efficiency and overall performance. A more thorough and cleaner fuel burn, and subsequently, a less noxious exhaust gas emission, fewer pollutants, and reduced energy consumption are just some of the benefits. I wouldn't presume to be an expert in these disciplines, but it doesn't take a jet propulsion engineer or rocket scientist to know that there are benefits achieved by reducing restrictions (to air flow) during periods of increased flow requirements. The experts have plenty of ram vs. performance curves, velocity and proper atomization of air/fuel mixture vs. efficiency charts, etc. In addition, other functions for which these high-intake device are useful include reduced introduction of particulates, moisture, gases and other foreign elements to the various sub-systems which are typically vented through snorkels (i.e., passenger/cab flow-through, ignition distribution systems, transmission, differential, transfer and other vehicle housings, cases and reservoirs). Sub-system enclosures may contain sensitive electronics, lubricants, atmosphere, coolant, sensors, which during their normal course of operation exhibit varying temperature gradients resulting in the inherent cyclical expansions and contractions which require venting. Proper porting to an appropriate device is key to prolonging component life, which in turn promotes motorist safety. It would great if a name change was sufficient to deflate the growing misconceptions about this otherwise innocuous device. Maybe we could call them what they are: Vehicular air handler, ventilation duct, performance and safety enhancement device, pressure equalizer, or any other more accurate label. The universally accepted and international use of the name "snorkel" is likely not going to change anytime soon, regardless of the wind direction in Washington, therefore, I am requesting that you delete all language regarding a ban on the use of aspiration facilitation devices (commonly known as snorkels) from SF 2793. Thanks you for your consideration. Signed: Responsible OHV enthusiast From: "James S." To: landcruisers@birfield.com Subject: RE: [LCML] Ban localized in MN Reply-To: landcruisers@birfield.com Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 14:28:21 -0700 Mark Janzen wrote: > My name is Mark Janzen. I am a member of the MNToyx4's. > I personally would like to applaud all who are trying to aid in our > quest. I attended one of the senate hearings where this verbage > originated > We're not out of the woods yet, but thanks to folks like Alex we may < not completely loose. > Once again, I send out my thanks. > Mark Janzen > Mpls, MN OK, Minnesota senate. Thanks Mark, for making me look into why I hadn't ever heard of Sen. Frederickson. Good news is he's not in Washington. Glad you and Alex are keeping tabs on your politicians. Hopefully, your efforts and the writings will help quash that nonsense. James --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.516 / Virus Database: 313 - Release Date: 9/1/03 Subject: RE: [LCML] Ban localized in MN From: tikiman@bighead.org To: landcruisers@birfield.com Reply-To: landcruisers@birfield.com Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 15:47:02 -0600 (CST) >> Mark Janzen >> Mpls, MN > > OK, Minnesota senate. Thanks Mark, for making me look into why I hadn't > ever heard of Sen. Frederickson. > Good news is he's not in Washington. Glad you and Alex are keeping tabs > on your politicians. Hopefully, your efforts and the writings will help > quash that nonsense. > > James > One liberty at a time, until what? Pissed off, Hunter Arend Lone Star Land Cruisers - Austin Chapter 1970 FJ55 "Elsie" 1994 FZJ80 "Prissy" 1994 FZJ80 "Dbl-D" "A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects." by R.A. Heinlein From: "Willem-Jan Markerink" To: landcruisers@birfield.com Subject: [LCML] (Fwd) snorkel ban help / Minnesota Reply-To: landcruisers@birfield.com Date: Sat, 03 Apr 2004 01:27:25 +0200 ------- Forwarded message follows ------- From: "woodmansee" To: Subject: [DTLC] snorkel ban help Date sent: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 08:19:12 -0600 Send reply to: dtlc@helios.net 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 ------- End of forwarded message ------- From: "seth" To: Subject: Re: [LCML] (Fwd) snorkel ban help / Minnesota Reply-To: landcruisers@birfield.com Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 16:47:50 -0700 I sent a e-mail, I am in flagstaff az, hope it helps Seth From: "Willem-Jan Markerink" To: landcruisers@birfield.com Subject: RE: [LCML] Ban localized in MN Cc: woodmansee Reply-To: landcruisers@birfield.com Date: Sat, 03 Apr 2004 02:38:12 +0200 On 2 Apr 2004 at 15:47, tikiman@bighead.org wrote: > LCML Homepage: http://www.birfield.com/mailman/listinfo/landcruisers > > > > >> Mark Janzen > >> Mpls, MN > > > > OK, Minnesota senate. Thanks Mark, for making me look into why I > > hadn't ever heard of Sen. Frederickson. Good news is he's not in > > Washington. Glad you and Alex are keeping tabs on your politicians. > > Hopefully, your efforts and the writings will help quash that > > nonsense. > > > > James > > > > One liberty at a time, until what? The came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up. Martin Niem=F6ller ( http://isurvived.org/ ) -- Bye, Willem-Jan Markerink The desire to understand is sometimes far less intelligent than the inability to understand [note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!] From: "Willem-Jan Markerink" To: landcruisers@birfield.com Subject: [LCML] Re: (Fwd) NEED MORE HELP! / snorkel ban update / US-leg Reply-To: landcruisers@birfield.com Date: Sat, 03 Apr 2004 02:42:01 +0200 On 2 Apr 2004 at 5:11, DP wrote: > Surely this is a bad April fool's joke. > > Donald P Nope, the story has run for much longer than this, with lots of input on other lists (started on DTLC-list), including ARB-USA, and no specific date-reference to 1/4 whatsoever. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To: 80scool@yahoogroups.com From: "John Powers" Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2004 18:36:42 -0000 Subject: Re: [80] Snorkel legislation in the US - HELP Reply-To: 80scool@yahoogroups.com --- In 80scool@yahoogroups.com, Reid Anderson wrote: > More help is needed on the snorkel ban issue. On DTLC woodmansee" wrote: > > > > i don't > > care where you are, to e-mail Senator Frederickson > > sen.dennis.frederickson@s... 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 > Just called the above number, reached an assistant. I asked that the Senator do a line-item delete, the ass't told me that the Sen had "no intentions" of doing the delete. :( Who is this idiot, anyway?? xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -- Bye, Willem-Jan Markerink The desire to understand is sometimes far less intelligent than the inability to understand [note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!] From: "woodmansee" To: , , "Dana Adams" 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. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Willem-Jan Markerink" To: "woodmansee" Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2004 10:39 AM Subject: (Fwd) Re: [80_usa] (Fwd) snorkel ban help / Minnesota > > ------- Forwarded message follows ------- > To: 80scool_usa@yahoogroups.com > From: "danamotors" > Date sent: Sat, 03 Apr 2004 01:35:23 -0000 > Subject: Re: [80_usa] (Fwd) snorkel ban help / Minnesota > Send reply to: 80scool_usa@yahoogroups.com > > Andrew, I posted the following to a local 80-series group. I don't > know the verbiage of the bill, nor do I know the contents of the > rest of the bill. BTW, this is a Minnesota bill, affecting only MN > at this time. > > Dana > > >>>>> > > Alex Woodmansee lives in Minnesota, she is a die-hard diesel > cruiserhead. Apparently, a law has been introduced into the Senate > to outlaw all Snorkels on offroad vehicles. Apparently the greenies > have got some pictures of several people on ATV's, Jeeps, Whatevers, > crossing some streams using the benefit of the snorkels to cross > deeper streams than they would otherwise be able. This is bad for > the environment, because it allows dirt/oil/grunge, etc to > contaminate the waters, and it also disrupts the streambed, > increasing siltation which kills salmon, etc. So they say. > > Anyway, she has single-handedly been fighting this proposed outright > ban on snorkels. She's been emailing the LCML and DTLC lists trying > to enlist other cruiserheads to her cause, which is to persuade the > authors of this bill to delete the snorkel ban from it's language. > > It's in our interests to assist her here, because if they get this > ban passed, we won't be able to have snorkels on our trucks, even if > you never got your tires wet!! Also, and more importantly, it sets > a horrible precedent. The greenies hate us, they want to lock down > all the great outdoors to offroading, so they will attempt at every > turn to stop us. This will open the door to other bans, for > example: large tires (they damage the fragile soil), large bumpers > (they damage the surrounding bush when you hit them), lockers (they > allow you to go places you otherwise couldn't, so that's bad), and > other equipment that we all take for granted. You get the idea. > > So please do send a little note to Senator Fredrickson at his email > address below. I did, urging him to severely target the offenders, > rather than imposing an outright ban of snorkels, which punishes all > for the sins of a few. > > Dana > > >>>>>> > , "Andrew Zook" wrote: > > Is there a link to this bill on the internet? What else is in the > bill? Why > > would they care about snorkles? Have you listed it on the PBB? > > > > CAZ > > Subject: Snorkel ban Minnesota / stop senator Frederickson's Bill SF2793 From: "Willem-Jan Markerink" Date: 3 Apr 2004 22:44:28 GMT Newsgroups: rec.autos.4x4,alt.atv,rec.autos.makers.jeep+willys [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/snorkel-ban_Minnesota_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" 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: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx From: "woodmansee" Subject: Re: (Fwd) Re: [80_usa] (Fwd) snorkel ban help / Minnesota Date: Sat, 3 Apr 2004 11:47:32 -0600 okay, here's the whole deal http://www.senate.leg.state.mn.us senate file 2793 chief author frederickson in subdivision 1 section c reads "A person may not operate an off-highway vehicle off-road on public land or public waters with an air intake pipe that is more than six inches above the manufacturer's original air-intake pipe" in MN an off highway vehicle is defined as an ATV (all terrain vehicle i.e. a three or four wheeler like a Honda Foreman, etc.), an OHM (off-highway motorcycle), and an ORV (off-road vehicle) which is what a land cruiser would fall under. now, the definition of an ORV is a vehicle licensed under MN statute blah blah blah (which means a vehicle that is highway licensed) that is then taken off road. so, if there were a toyota corolla that wanted to go on a "trail" (NOT a forest road) in a state forest say to go berry picking (yes, in MN this is a reality), that corolla then becomes an ORV. highway licensed vehicles are NOT exempt from this snorkel ban. the proposed ban makes it illegal to operate an ATV, OHM, or ORV with a snorkel while off road on state lands, not just state forests, but any state lands. there are exemptions for those doing utility, logging, or farm work and such. so, i can keep my snorkels on my trucks and be fine as long as i am never off road on any state lands with them. otherwise, to be in compliance while off road on state lands, i would have to remove my safari snorkel from my truck. ya, right, like i can do that. my three diesel cruisers are daily drivers for me. i put snorkels on for all the well known on road reasons. and keep in mind water and wetland crossings are already illegal here! but my trucks are also my trail rigs and do see trail time anywhere from 5% to 15% of the time. this law would force me to forgo a furture or undo a current modification that is really designed and used for on road purposes only on trucks are on road the majority of the time. most of the trucks in MN that have snorkels are also mostly road denizens (land rovers). the only trucks that are truly off road only trailer queens are some of the suzukis with the RPMs club. so this law is really the biggest punishment to people who have highway licensed vehicles with snorkels on them for the obvious smart on road reasons who wish to take those particular trucks off road from time to time on MN state lands. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx And NO, this is NOT a late April Fool's joke. -- Bye, Willem-Jan Markerink The desire to understand is sometimes far less intelligent than the inability to understand [note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!] From: "rschra" To: Subject: [FJ55] re: snorkel ban Reply-To: fj55@birfield.com Date: Sun, 4 Apr 2004 13:04:28 +0200 Quote; "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" If a mod made to the factory air intake may not exeed the 6 inches above it why not order the rig with high inlets from the dealer? The dust/water snorkels are available as an option when you buy the 4x4. so if the are on the car when it get registrated it seems to me there is no problem. Maybe its a loophole? To be sure that you wont get any ticket for it on offroad use maybe it should be stated on the papers as an original factory inlet. Rgds Ronald From: "Willem-Jan Markerink" To: fj55@birfield.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: landcruisers@birfield.com, 80scool_usa@yahoogroups.com, dtlc@helios.net, 80scool@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FJ55] Re: snorkel ban Reply-To: fj55@birfield.com Date: Sun, 04 Apr 2004 18:15:59 +0200 On 4 Apr 2004 at 13:04, rschra wrote: > Quote; > > "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" > > > If a mod made to the factory air intake may not exeed the 6 inches above > it why not order the rig with high inlets from the dealer? The > dust/water snorkels are available as an option when you buy the 4x4. so > if the are on the car when it get registrated it seems to me there is no > problem. Maybe its a loophole? To be sure that you wont get any ticket > for it on offroad use maybe it should be stated on the papers as an > original factory inlet. Sadly it has never been a factory option in North America, and AFAIK, it is *only* an option on 'general-spec' (Africa/Australia) J7, and not on any wagon (J5/J6/J8/J10) anywhere. Best sources for this conclusion are the product-listings from large Cruiser-exporters like Toyota Gibraltar....I have their catalogue, and the only *factory* 'raised air intake' is for J7; for J10 they only offer aftermarket Safari/Airtec. -- Bye, Willem-Jan Markerink The desire to understand is sometimes far less intelligent than the inability to understand [note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!] To: <80scool@yahoogroups.com> From: "Norm Needham" Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 17:39:39 +1000 Subject: Re: [80] Re: snorkel ban Reply-To: 80scool@yahoogroups.com From: "Willem-Jan Markerink" > > Sadly it has never been a factory option in North America, and AFAIK, > it is *only* an option on 'general-spec' (Africa/Australia) J7, and > not on any wagon (J5/J6/J8/J10) anywhere. > Standard fitment on 78/79 in Oz. Was an option on 80. Don't know about 100/105. Cheers Norm Needham Tea Gardens - Oz HDJ79 From: "Peter Straub" To: Subject: RE: [LCML] Snorkel Ban? Reply-To: landcruisers@birfield.com Date: Sun, 4 Apr 2004 11:13:28 -0600 I just love the 'logic' some people employ.... Some People... "People are driving through wetlands illegally. Somebody told me that snorkels are used to drive through wetlands. Let's ban snorkels." Maybe it's just me... "People are driving through wetlands illegally. Let's enforce the existing laws." It's like saying that hikers with walking poles illegally trample on alpine vegetation. Let's ban walkng poles. "But my elderly father requires a cane for increased mobility - he would be at a disadvantage in basic moblity without his cane." "Sounds like one alpine trampling villian won't be stomping on helpless little flowers now, will he?" I would turn the arguement on the law makers. Instead of trying to argue the non-wetland driving values of a snorkel, why not ask them to prove how the ban will prevent wetland destruction. Have they any studies of the number of criminal drivers use snorkels. Have they compared how many vehicles without snorkels could do the same damage? What about vehicles that DO have a factory raised intake, like the Hummer. Will they now be allowed to drive through protected wetlands? The fact is, that there is only opinion and inuendo driving this decision. I have this theory I employ at work all the time. Management by fact - if there is a disagreement, and we are having a discussion about the topic, we immediately ignore and throw out anything that isn't a fact. If someone wants to express their opinion, we tell them that this is not the forum, and the water cooler is outside - we are here to talk about the facts of the situation. You would be surprised how quickly all emotions are eliminated, and a productive fact based discussion can be had, and you would also be surprised how few facts there often are. Most of what drives people is things they were told which shapes their opinions. Very few people ever read the studies, and ever fewer experiment themselves. Peter Straub To: pinzgauer@yahoogroups.com From: "Jim Cambron" Date: Sun, 04 Apr 2004 16:48:49 -0000 Subject: [pinzgauer] Re: Snorkel ban Minnesota / stop senator Frederickson's Bill SF2793 Reply-To: pinzgauer@yahoogroups.com I performed an "Urban Legend" check and found the actual bill listed on a Minnesota website listing current bills the STATE Senator (capitalized for clarification purposes) in question is proposing. Below my comments is the relevant text of Minnesota Senate Bill 2719 in the 2003-2004 session: It would seem that this section is a bit arbitrary and not fully encompassing public land use in that it does not address COMMERCIAL vehicles other than those operated by farmers, logging companies or Public Untilities (eg pipeline companies, power companies, or communications utilities). Consider what might happen if this section was applied by the State of Wisconsin verbatim: Quite possibly, the amphibious tour companies that operate in the Wisconcin Dells would not be able to operate their DUKWS (and similar equipment) because of modifications to the air intake systems done either for increased safety required by other Wisconsin statutary regulations, insurance carriers, trade organization studies or as mandated by the U.S. Coast Guard. Thus this bill could kill off an entire segment of the the Wisconsin Tourism Industry if implemented in that state. It certainly would prevent the growth of such an industry in Minnesota as written. To me, this bill is loaded down here, and in other sections, with language changes that neither effectively protects the natural resources of Minnesota or improves the cost-effective manner in which these resources are managed in any logical or thoughtful manner. It's just blatant application of more government controls and taxation for no real definable purpose other than to "joust with a windmill", so to speak. That "windmill" being efforts to control illegal use of public lands by creating a law that punishes a law- abiding segment of the population instead of the offending individuals who litter, pollute and otherwise destroy Minnesota's natural resources. Raised air intakes don't don't ruin the environment, people ruin the environment. And I consider myself a politically middle-of-the-road kind of guy who has no particular interest in projectile weapons... Ack Text from Minnesota Senate Bill 2719 2.8 (b) The restriction in paragraph (a), clause (3), does not 2.9 apply to frozen type 8 wetlands until October 1, 2009. 2.10 (c) A person may not operate an off-highway vehicle 2.11 off-road on public land or public waters with an air intake pipe 2.12 that is more than six inches above the manufacturer's original 2.13 air-intake pipe. 2.14 Subd. 2. [SPECIFIC USE EXEMPTIONS.] Subdivision 1 does not 2.15 apply to an off-highway vehicle being used for farming; an 2.16 off-highway vehicle used for military, fire, emergency, or law 2.17 enforcement purposes; a construction or logging off-highway 2.18 vehicle used in the performance of its common function; an 2.19 off-highway vehicle owned by or operated under contract with a 2.20 utility or pipeline company, when used for work on utilities or 2.21 pipelines; or a government-owned vehicle used for official 2.22 business. 2.23 Subd. 3. [HUNTING AND TRAPPING EXEMPTIONS.] Subdivision 1, 2.24 clause (3), does not apply to the direct crossing of type 8 2.25 wetlands by an off-highway vehicle being used by an individual 2.26 on private or public lands lawfully engaged in hunting and 2.27 trapping activities as described in section 84.926, subdivision 2.28 2. To: pinzgauer@yahoogroups.com From: "Jim Cambron" Date: Sun, 04 Apr 2004 17:14:03 -0000 Subject: [pinzgauer] Re: Snorkel ban (more) Reply-To: pinzgauer@yahoogroups.com Not trying to be a braggart, but I have been accused of occasionally being able to turn a meaningful phrase. Opposition to the silly law changes proposed in Minnesota Senate bill 2719 is important to the future of offroading in Minnesota and the nonsensical interference of government in people's (and businesses') lives and existances. Anyone who wants to send my comments (in my previous post on this subject) or ones couched in a similar fashion to your local Minnesota daily newspaper's "Letters to the Editor" may do so with my permission, Please attribute any direct quote to me, Jim Cambron, Independence, MO. I ask this in case someone really wants to know "Who said that?" That way I can directly explain my logic (Based on actual research. Really!) to anyone who wants to know. No point in creating another "Urban Legend" situation. An exception is the "Raised air intakes don't don't ruin the environment, people ruin the environment" quote. That one is too appropriate to tie up with attribution! Use it as often as you like! :^) Ack To: 80scool_usa@yahoogroups.com From: tikiman@bighead.org Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 08:56:01 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: [80_usa] (Fwd) snorkel ban help / Minnesota Reply-To: 80scool_usa@yahoogroups.com > After reading it, it looks like it is talking about ATVs to me! > I don't think it applies to snorkels on "on road" vehicles. I doubt that > they even know such a thing exists. > > CAZ Might as well nip it in the bud, as even if they are talking about hikers they'll be coming at us next! Besides, if the definition sounds sketchy to us just think what a lawyer/senator could do to it! One liberty at a time, let's try to hang on to them as we don't have all that many left. Later, Hunter Arend Lone Star Land Cruisers - Austin Chapter 1970 FJ55 "Elsie" 1994 FZJ80 "Prissy" 1994 FZJ80 "Dbl-D" "A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects." by R.A. Heinlein From: "woodmansee" To: Cc: , Subject: [DTLC] snorkel ban update Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 16:22:27 -0500 Reply-To: dtlc@helios.net well, just found out that the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (www.dnr.state.mn.us) supports "an outright ban" on snorkels so the fight has to go beyond the law makers now and is now feeling a lot less winnable to me, but i will be passing out the ARB USA letter to two of the DNR's top brass tomorrow night and hope that I can make and impact with them... i feel like this the beginning of the end, and if MN is successful, then other states might start thinking they can do it too, still crying out for help here, so, anyone who can point me in the direction of studies proving all the reasons we already know to be true in regards to the on-road uses for snorkels... From: "Bob Bancroft" To: Subject: Re: [DTLC] snorkel ban update Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 14:49:47 -0700 Reply-To: dtlc@helios.net ----- Original Message ----- From: "woodmansee" Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2004 2:22 PM > well, just found out that the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources > (www.dnr.state.mn.us) supports "an outright ban" on snorkels so the fight > has to go beyond the law makers now and is now feeling a lot less winnable > to me, but i will be passing out the ARB USA letter to two of the DNR's top > brass tomorrow night and hope that I can make and impact with them... > > i feel like this the beginning of the end, and if MN is successful, then > other states might start thinking they can do it too, still crying out for > help here, so, anyone who can point me in the direction of studies proving > all the reasons we already know to be true in regards to the on-road uses > for snorkels... > I hate to be devil's advocate. But, on my stupid TV the other day "TRUCKS", they did a dodge power upgrade that included a new air intake (for the same reasons one might use a snorkel). The air intake was under the front fender for cold, clean air intake. Stupid as it may seem for any kind of off pavement driving, that is an aftermarket, professionally installed kit that may be used against you. Just be ready for that to pop up someplace. Plus, if snorkels are banned, all you are going to do is route you air intake into the cab, and then cross that same stream anyway. Maybe they should make a rule that says you cannot drive in water deeper than your tires, or something equally stupid. I can't even believe the snorkel population is high enough to even warrant thinking about such stupid legislation, but who am I, I live in the desert - where maybe a dust reduction snorkel is a good idea. I'm tired of buying $20 air filters once a month in my area, so I use K&N, but a snorkel and pre-filter would also help. Or how is this - I need a snorkel because the salmon keep clogging my regular intake. It's still a stupid idea simply because there are so many easy ways around having a snorkel. 85% of the SUV's will never get off pavement, then the remaining 99% of us won't ever be driving in water deeper than our hood, so all we have to do is route the air intake up high and we are set to go, snorkel or not. And, I'm sure if it is successful, somebody will immediately come out with an aftermarket product that meets the rules and achieves the deep water crossing goal of the driver (interior air intake, inner fender air intake, Black ABS piping, with an elbow on the end, you stick a vertical pipe in when you need to go deep, dive tanks for you deep water truck, who knows what we can dream up). Sorry not much help, but fun, thought provoking criticism of one more stupid legislation idea. I assume this is not a stand alone bill, but being tacked on with other more meaningful legislation? Maybe a second approach would be to get the entire bill killed, not just the snorkel part - And that about taps out my political knowledge. Bob Bancroft, Bend, OR HZT60 - soon From: "Nicoll" To: dtlc@helios.net Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 09:26:20 +1000 Subject: Re: [DTLC] snorkel ban update Reply-To: dtlc@helios.net On 13 Apr 2004 at 16:22, woodmansee wrote: > well, just found out that the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources > (www.dnr.state.mn.us) supports "an outright ban" on snorkels so the fight > has to go beyond the law makers now and is now feeling a lot less winnable > to me, but i will be passing out the ARB USA letter to two of the DNR's top > brass tomorrow night and hope that I can make and impact with them... > > i feel like this the beginning of the end, and if MN is successful, then > other states might start thinking they can do it too, still crying out for > help here, so, anyone who can point me in the direction of studies proving > all the reasons we already know to be true in regards to the on-road uses > for snorkels... > > Being in Australia, I haven't really followed this all that much. I'm wondering what the ban would mean to people from NY? I mean, surely they can't expect people who legally have a Snorkel in an NY registered vehicle to not go on holidays to MN? Ian From: "Dana Adams" To: dtlc@helios.net Subject: Re: [DTLC] snorkel ban update Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 00:32:07 +0000 Reply-To: dtlc@helios.net >From: "woodmansee" >Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 16:22:27 -0500 > >well, just found out that the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources >(www.dnr.state.mn.us) supports "an outright ban" on snorkels so the fight >has to go beyond the law makers now and is now feeling a lot less winnable >to me, but i will be passing out the ARB USA letter to two of the DNR's top >brass tomorrow night and hope that I can make and impact with them... > >i feel like this the beginning of the end, and if MN is successful, then >other states might start thinking they can do it too, still crying out for >help here, so, anyone who can point me in the direction of studies proving >all the reasons we already know to be true in regards to the on-road uses >for snorkels... > Alex, I would talk to the big-truck manufacturers, or those who service them. I've seen some of the trucks that have their intake high up on the cab's A-pillar. Is there a reason for that location? It's right where the snorkel intake is located on our cruisers. Ige from the LCML is in the truck parts biz, maybe she can shed some light on this issue. I think she's also in MN, or close by. ige gustavson From: w.j.markerink@a1.nl To: dtlc@helios.net Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 04:20:42 +0200 Subject: Re: [DTLC] snorkel ban update Reply-To: dtlc@helios.net On 13 Apr 2004 at 14:49, Bob Bancroft wrote: > It's still a stupid idea simply because there are so many easy ways > around having a snorkel. 85% of the SUV's will never get off pavement, > then the remaining 99% of us won't ever be driving in water deeper than > our hood, so all we have to do is route the air intake up high and we > are set to go, snorkel or not. Heh. Think hybrid & electric....gnagnagna....:))))))) -- Bye, Willem-Jan Markerink The desire to understand is sometimes far less intelligent than the inability to understand [note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!] From: w.j.markerink@a1.nl To: dtlc@helios.net Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 04:23:18 +0200 Subject: Re: [DTLC] snorkel ban update Reply-To: dtlc@helios.net On 13 Apr 2004 at 14:49, Bob Bancroft wrote: > And, I'm sure if it is successful, somebody will immediately come out > with an aftermarket product that meets the rules and achieves the deep > water crossing goal of the driver (interior air intake, inner fender air > intake, Black ABS piping, with an elbow on the end, you stick a vertical > pipe in when you need to go deep, dive tanks for you deep water truck, > who knows what we can dream up). All you need is a stock Unimog....factory snorkel on *all* of them, 3m tall (while the official fording depth is still 1.20m!). Perhaps a bunch of such Unimog's could show up on the steps of the congress....:)) -- Bye, Willem-Jan Markerink The desire to understand is sometimes far less intelligent than the inability to understand [note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!] From: w.j.markerink@a1.nl To: dtlc@helios.net Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 04:29:22 +0200 Subject: Re: [DTLC] snorkel ban update Reply-To: dtlc@helios.net On 14 Apr 2004 at 9:26, Nicoll wrote: > Being in Australia, I haven't really followed this all that much. I'm wondering what the > ban would mean to people from NY? I mean, surely they can't expect people who > legally have a Snorkel in an NY registered vehicle to not go on holidays to MN? It 'only' involves state-forests, so expect the blunt & ignorant 'sure you can visit us, just not offroad anywhere'.... -- Bye, Willem-Jan Markerink The desire to understand is sometimes far less intelligent than the inability to understand [note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!] From: "woodmansee" To: Subject: Re: [DTLC] snorkel ban update Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 07:39:31 -0500 Reply-To: dtlc@helios.net ----- Original Message ----- From: Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2004 9:29 PM > On 14 Apr 2004 at 9:26, Nicoll wrote: > > > Being in Australia, I haven't really followed this all that much. I'm wondering what the > > ban would mean to people from NY? I mean, surely they can't expect people who > > legally have a Snorkel in an NY registered vehicle to not go on holidays to MN? > > It 'only' involves state-forests, so expect the blunt & ignorant > 'sure you can visit us, just not offroad anywhere'.... > -- actually all state lands off road, so i won't be able to recreate at the state off-highway vehicle parks either..... From: "Jeff Zepp" To: Subject: Re: [DTLC] snorkel ban update Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 23:49:52 -0600 Reply-To: dtlc@helios.net -----Original Message----- From: woodmansee Date: Tuesday, April 13, 2004 3:21 PM >well, just found out that the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources >(www.dnr.state.mn.us) supports "an outright ban" on snorkels so the fight >has to go beyond the law makers now and is now feeling a lot less winnable >to me, but i will be passing out the ARB USA letter to two of the DNR's top >brass tomorrow night and hope that I can make and impact with them... > >i feel like this the beginning of the end, and if MN is successful, then >other states might start thinking they can do it too, still crying out for >help here, so, anyone who can point me in the direction of studies proving >all the reasons we already know to be true in regards to the on-road uses >for snorkels... Alex, I wish even 1/10 of us had the zeal to fight like you are. Keep up the good work! Have you heard back from Carla Boucher, the lawyer lobbiest for United 4WD Association? Jeff Zepp From: "woodmansee" To: Subject: Re: [DTLC] snorkel ban update Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 08:45:01 -0500 Reply-To: dtlc@helios.net > Alex, > > I wish even 1/10 of us had the zeal to fight like you are. Keep up the good > work! Have you heard back from Carla Boucher, the lawyer lobbiest for United > 4WD Association? > > Jeff Zepp the guys from Twin Cities Off Road are the ones who have been in contact with her, so don't know. and remember, i am not fighting this alone, and the snorkel fight is not the only one on our plate right now. but it looks like we have been making headway in the other areas, the snorkel one is the only one that doesn't look good right now. but, we got the DNR to take the first six state forest plans back (which originally contained no truck trails) and tell their area teams to include us and we have some language to this effect in the house right now, a little watered down but the spirit is there, and every little bit helps. and we got rid of the gas tax study, motorized use of wetland study, and some other things that were detrimental to us. i've got the DNR interested in buying a parcel of land in the southern half of the state (where the forests are completely closed to off road travel) for a truck only off road park, and some other small gains have taken place recently too, so, we're getting there, not much, but considering what we are up against in this state, anything is better than nothing. what's really disturbing to me is the the new management plan proposed for the national forest system across the entire US i need to learn more about this..... To: 80scool@yahoogroups.com From: Ian Packer Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 17:00:16 +0100 Subject: Re: [80] (Fwd) snorkel ban update Minnesota Reply-To: 80scool@yahoogroups.com On Wed, 2004-04-14 at 03:33, Willem-Jan Markerink wrote: > This is not looking good.... > > (preceeding list-mails at > http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/snorkel-ban_Minnesota_SF2793.txt > That's like the sort of s**t we've been getting in the UK about even using trails and we are only allowed on less than 5% anyway. It's an admission that they either can't or can't be bothered to enforce the law. Bit like saying we're banning walking boots because you might trespass. Ian. To: 80scool_aus@yahoogroups.com From: All American Imports Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 21:32:07 +0200 Subject: [80_aus] FW: SEMA Legislative Update: Minnesota Anti-Hobbyist Snorkel Bill DIES Reply-To: 80scool_aus@yahoogroups.com Some good news for a change. Pushing and pulling here and there has helped a bit. 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 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 From: "Willem-Jan Markerink" To: 80scool_aus@yahoogroups.com Cc: 80scool@yahoogroups.com, dtlc@helios.net, landcruisers@birfield.com Subject: [LCML] Re: (fwd) Snorkel-ban Update! / FW: SEMA Legislative Update: Minnesota Anti-Hobbyist Snorkel Bill DIES Reply-To: landcruisers@birfield.com Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 23:41:03 +0200 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 -- Bye, Willem-Jan Markerink The desire to understand is sometimes far less intelligent than the inability to understand [note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!]