To require the Department of Natural Resources to conduct two comprehensive studies on elk reintroduction and side-by-side trail expansion, to name this act the Trails and Tails Act, and to make an appropriation.
HB641, the Trails and Tails Act, requires the Ohio Department of Natural Resources to conduct two separate studies. One study, led by the Division of Parks and Watercraft, would examine the creation and expansion of all-purpose vehicle and side-by-side riding opportunities across Ohio, using Shawnee State Park, East Fork State Park, and Salt Fork State Park as primary study sites. The study must assess terrain suitability, environmental effects, economic and tourism impacts, safety and enforcement needs, public-use conflicts, infrastructure and funding options, and possible connections to broader tourism corridors.
The second study, led by the Division of Wildlife, would evaluate whether elk could be reintroduced into Ohio’s state forests and wildlife areas. That analysis must address habitat suitability, ecological impacts, disease risks, source populations and relocation logistics, long-term population management, and fiscal effects. The bill also requires public meetings, stakeholder input, and a final report to the General Assembly and Governor by December 30, 2028, with legislative and rulemaking recommendations.
The bill does not directly change wildlife, parks, or motorized recreation law, but it directs the Department of Natural Resources to undertake detailed planning studies and report back with recommendations that could lead to future legislation or administrative rule changes. It appropriates $3 million from the General Revenue Fund, with $2 million dedicated to the trail study and $1 million to the elk reintroduction study, and allows unspent funds to carry forward. The bill would affect DNR divisions, local governments, universities, tourism groups, farm interests, hunters, and other stakeholders by formally involving them in the study process and by potentially setting the stage for future trail development, wildlife management changes, and related funding decisions.
The available context shows no recorded votes or committee testimony, and the bill is only at the introduced stage. Based on the bill text, the measure appears generally supportive of outdoor recreation, tourism development, and wildlife restoration planning, while also emphasizing environmental review and public input. The structure of the bill suggests an exploratory, study-oriented approach rather than an immediate policy shift, which may make it more broadly palatable to a range of interests.
The main areas of likely contention are the balance between expanded side-by-side/ATV access and environmental or user-conflict concerns, and the proposal to reintroduce elk, which could raise issues involving disease risk, crop damage, habitat impacts, and compatibility with existing hunting and wildlife management practices. Farm bureaus, wildlife conservation organizations, hunting and angling groups, and local residents near proposed trail or elk areas may have differing views on the costs and benefits. Questions about funding, long-term maintenance, enforcement, and whether the studies should precede any commitment to implementation are also likely points of debate.