Adams County supervisors hear mixed views on opening county roads to ATVs and UTVs

A committee-of-the-whole meeting of the Adams County Board of Supervisors on March 18, 2025, brought presenters, county law enforcement and residents to the microphone to discuss whether county highways should be opened to all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) and utility terrain vehicles (UTVs). The meeting included reports from a Wood County supervisor who led a countywide opening there, tourism and local club leaders and the Adams County sheriff’s office; the board took no final action to change county policy at that session.

The discussion opened with Scott Brame, a Wood County supervisor, who described Wood County’s stepwise move to make most county roads open to ATVs and UTVs. Brame said opening roads improved connectivity between communities and that in seven years his county had “not had 1 fatality or any car versus ATV or UTV on any of the county roads that we have had open.” He added that his county requires ATVs to follow posted speed limits and allows the highway commissioner to close routes if problems arise.

Megan Steckelberg, president and CEO of Visit Adams County, presented statewide economic data from industry reports and consulting analyses, saying off-road recreation delivers substantial economic activity in Wisconsin. Steckelberg told the board she did not have Adams County–specific figures without a commissioned study that she estimated would cost $5,000–$10,000, and that statewide tourism receipts provide context but do not directly quantify local impact.

Bruce “Bubba” Bain, president of the Monroe Prairie ATV Club, said local clubs have grown, patrol trails, and work with the sheriff’s office and county recreation staff. Bain said an earlier nonbinding county referendum on opening roads had “passed. But barely,” and urged supervisors to consider that expressed voter preference.

Adams County Sheriff Jeffrey York described current enforcement and safety work. Sheriff York said the department maintains a county map of open routes, runs safety classes with a recreation deputy and DNR instructors, and shares route data with manufacturers for in-dash mapping. He reported that, since February 2019, the county recorded five off-road fatalities countywide but none on county highways that are open, and that 13 ATV/UTV accidents were reported in the same period (seven on roadways, four on private property and two on trails). York said most enforcement issues stem from riders who “just didn’t know where to go” and emphasized coordination with DNR wardens and neighboring counties to improve consistency for riders and for deputies enforcing the law.

Opponents and some supervisors raised practical concerns. Several speakers said modified UTVs with factory long-travel suspension can negotiate rough curves and potholes that ordinary passenger vehicles may not, creating a risk for drivers following a UTV. One resident asked how insurance and liability requirements are enforced; Sheriff York answered that law enforcement enforces registrations and insurance similarly to other traffic citations and that DNR wardens and deputies coordinate on enforcement.

Board members also debated meeting procedure: Supervisor Posdowski moved to limit the Wood County presenter’s time to three minutes; the board voted that procedural motion down (final tally recorded as 2 yes, 16 no) and allowed the presenter to continue. Committee discussion included references to practices in surrounding counties, enforcement capacity (the sheriff noted one deputy has primary recreation enforcement duties, supplemented by other deputies, DNR wardens and state patrol as available) and how county highways with higher traffic counts might be treated differently.

No ordinance or final rule was adopted during the committee meeting. Board members and the sheriff described a proposed county ordinance change under consideration that would assign review of county highway closures and re-openings to the traffic safety commission, chaired by the highway commissioner, with the commission making safety-related recommendations to the highway committee.

Speakers and officials repeatedly noted differences between county and state road jurisdiction: opening state highways requires state approval. The meeting closed with the committee adjourning so the regular board meeting could begin.

Ending: The committee meeting produced policy discussion, public testimony and follow-up questions for staff; supervisors left the matter open for further review and possible ordinance drafting or referral to the highway and traffic safety committees for technical analysis and recommended language.