County hears request to allow guided OHV tours to access BLM trail from Resada Ranch; staff told to draft narrow ordinance

Matthew Miller, a representative of a private recreation company that operates guided Polaris side‑by‑side tours, asked the Crook County Board of Commissioners on Sept. 24 to allow his operation to use about 1.2 miles of Alfalfa (Alpalfa/Alfalfa) Road to access a BLM access road leading into the Milliken OHV area. Miller said his operation stores equipment at an equestrian center and would stage departures from that site, follow the county road to a BLM access point and run guided tours on designated BLM OHV routes.

Why it matters: Commissioners and law enforcement said the request raises public‑safety and precedent questions for Crook County roads. Several commissioners said they would support exploring limited, regulatory permission for a business to use a short stretch of county road to reach public OHV trails, but they emphasized the county should restrict any permission to very specific circumstances, require insurance and consider visible identification for commercial vehicles.

Miller told the board his company holds the special‑use permit from the BLM that allows guided use inside the Milliken OHV system. He said tours would remain on designated dirt BLM routes, guides would accompany all vehicles, and Polaris links GPS units so guides can monitor vehicles. “All of these experiences will be guided,” Miller said. He described vehicles with features such as running lights, reverse cameras and GPS units and said Polaris provides an insurance option customers can purchase.

Law‑enforcement officials told the board they worry about increased calls for service if motorized access on county roads becomes more common. One speaker who identified himself as a law‑enforcement representative said the main cause of prior incidents in the area has been trespass and people who are unprepared for public‑lands travel. “The 1 concern that I have would be some unintended consequence and increased call volume for us,” he said.

County staff recommended against singling out a single company or road without an ordinance. Will (county staff) told commissioners he would prefer a narrowly tailored local ordinance that would allow a commercial operator to use a limited stretch of county road to reach an on‑public‑lands trail system only if the operator met insurance, signage and other protections. “If the commission wants to proceed with exploring this, we should look at drafting a narrowly kinda tailored ordinance,” Will said.

Commissioners asked for clarity about who would be responsible for liability and about vehicle identification and signage. Miller said his company would cooperate with decals or other identification and that the county road department preferred that crews ride on the roadway rather than on the roadside.

Outcome: The board did not adopt an ordinance at the meeting. Commissioners directed staff to draft options: a narrowly tailored ordinance limiting commercial OHV access to a short, specified distance on county road(s) with insurance and identification requirements, and to return those options for further consideration. Staff and commissioners also discussed placing any final approach on a consent or regular agenda once drafted.

What remains unresolved: Whether a county ordinance would conflict with state law on use of nonmotorized or motor vehicle traffic and whether authorizing a short county‑road use for a single operator would set a broader precedent that other operators or private landowners could seek to replicate. County counsel will be asked to review liability questions and precedent issues.

Ending: Commissioners said they were open to moving forward cautiously. Will told the board he would draft a narrowly tailored ordinance proposal, work with community development and counsel on liability language, and bring model ordinances and examples from other Oregon counties back to the board for a future meeting.