# 2010 Comprehensive OHV Legislation



## bradymsu

Here is the long awaited 2010 ORV (now to be "OHV") legislation. Intelligent feedback, as always, is welcome.


Version: July 21, 2009 (Pre-Draft #1)
​*2010 OHV Comprehensive Legislation*
​ 
_This legislation impacts numerous sections of __Michigan__ ORV law. It is referred to as the "2010 Comprehensive" to distinguish it from other ORV legislation. The legislation is based on public comment and the contribution of various user groups. It is a work in progress. Changes are anticipated throughout the legislative process. The summary below reflects the status of the legislation as of the date listed above._

_The 2010 Comprehensive would increase funding for trail maintenance and law enforcement on public land and county roads. It seeks to better address problems regarding public and private trespass and unsupervised youth operation. It would improve OHV safety education. It would clean-up issues identified with PA 240'08, apply PA 240'08 state-wide and make that law permanent._


*Summary of changes:*

References to "Off-road vehicle" and "ORV" in Michigan law would be changed to "Off-highway vehicle and "OHV" to reflect federal law.

The cost of an annual trail permit would increase to $30.50. Of that, $14.50 would go to trail maintenance, $14.50 to department operations, enforcement and special initiatives, $1 to OHV safety education, and 50 cents to the license vendor.

An annual registration of OHVs not already plated by the state would be established. The cost of the annual registration would be $6. Of that, $1 would go to the Secretary of State for administration and 50 cents would go to OHV safety education. The remaining money would be dispersed to county sheriffs where county roads are opened to OHVs pursuant to PA 240'08 in a ratio proportional to the number of OHV lane miles open in each county to the state total. The registration would expire on April 1 of each year. Otherwise, the registration process would be closely based on the current snowmobile registration process.

Along with a certificate of registration, the Secretary of State would establish and issue an identifying decal under rules promulgated by that department that would be displayed on the OHV. The registration decal would not be required for OHVs that are already plated through the Secretary of State or have a current plate or current registration decal from another state or a province of Canada.

OHV registrations would be included in the Law Enforcement Information Network (LEIN).

Any county, township, city or village in the state would be able to open its local roads under PA 240. PA 240 would no longer be restricted to northern Michigan.

The Michigan Transportation Commission would be able to permanently, seasonally or temporarily authorize the travel of OHVs on short stretches of state highways that have a speed limit at or below 45 miles per hour.

The location of operation on county roads would be clarified to include maintained shoulders.

The language allowing county road commissions to close up to 30% of county roads for environmental or safety reasons would be clarified to reflect the original intent of PA 240.

Language would be added to authorize local units of government to permit the travel of OHVs on roads maintained with state or local funds that pass through or along federal forest lands.

Penalties would be doubled for trespass on private and public lands, unsupervised youth operation and operating an OHV without a helmet except where helmet use is not currently required.

The definition of an ATV would be amended to reflect the language of HB 5087.

The MDNR would establish an OHV Safety Training Academy to train and license OHV Safety instructors. These instructors would be compensated through rules promulgated by the department through the OHV Safety Training Fund at a rate of not more than $20 per student. Licensed OHV safety instructors would not be allowed to charge an additional fee for classroom instruction but would be allowed to charge a fee for optional hands-on instruction desired by the parent or student.

A free riding day would be established the third Saturday in May where an OHV trail sticker or OHV registration is not required.

Liability limits would be established for trail maintenance organizations equal to that provided to organizations that groom snowmobile trails.

The threshold for an organized group event on state land would be increased to 75 vehicles unless the group is collecting a fee for the event.

Language would be added to define "primitive road" and clarify that primitive roads are closed to OHV traffic.

The PA 240 sunset would be removed.


----------



## foxriver6

1) Would "trail permits" only be required on trails or whenever operated off private property? 

2) Money allocated to County Sheriff's from the registration, would this be a general allocation to them to use as they deem fit OR would they be required to use it specific to ORV equipment and ORV enforcement?

3) You mention doubling the fines for trespass, unsupervised youth and no helmets. The law already allows for a fine up to $500 and in the case of trespass and unsupervised youth up to 90 days in jail. So are you talking about a max $1000 fine which you know no judge will ever assess OR are you talking about establishing a minimum fine?


----------



## bradymsu

foxriver6 said:


> 1) Would "trail permits" only be required on trails or whenever operated off private property?
> 
> 2) Money allocated to County Sheriff's from the registration, would this be a general allocation to them to use as they deem fit OR would they be required to use it specific to ORV equipment and ORV enforcement?


The requirements for where trail permits are required would not change. It is my understanding that trail permits are currently required for use on public roads even if state trails aren't accessed.

There is no language in the draft that requires the funds to the county sheriff to be used for the enforcement of ORV ordinances. It should be added. Thanks for bringing it up.


----------



## foxriver6

Right now the "ORV trail permit" is legally defined as a "ORV license". 

So now will need an ORV license and a ORV registration? I wonder how that will be received by the public. You might be better off changing the name from "ORV license" to "ORV Trail Permit".

For snowmobiles, you have a snowmobile trail permit and a snowmobile registration. Both are required at all times with certain exceptions. For example, while ice fishing, a snowmobile is required to have a snowmobile registration but not a snowmobile trail permit.

When ice fishing, will a quad be required to have a both? Currently the quad is required to have a ORV license.

What happens when the Sheriff's Office doesn't have a road patrol such as the case in Iosco County or some of the UP counties? How is that money channeled to the agencies that would use it for ORV road enforcement such as the State Police or municipal agencies?


----------



## Uncle Boopoo

$30.50 for a trail permit is a STEEP increase:yikes:

Hunting and fishing licenses are not taking that big of a hit, what gives?

Its not the end of the world, but where does all that money go? It doesn't go to grooming or trail maps because those things only exsist at a bare minimum.


----------



## bradymsu

foxriver6 said:


> Right now the "ORV trail permit" is legally defined as a "ORV license".
> 
> So now will need an ORV license and a ORV registration? I wonder how that will be received by the public. You might be better off changing the name from "ORV license" to "ORV Trail Permit".
> 
> For snowmobiles, you have a snowmobile trail permit and a snowmobile registration. Both are required at all times with certain exceptions. For example, while ice fishing, a snowmobile is required to have a snowmobile registration but not a snowmobile trail permit.
> 
> When ice fishing, will a quad be required to have a both? Currently the quad is required to have a ORV license.
> 
> What happens when the Sheriff's Office doesn't have a road patrol such as the case in Iosco County or some of the UP counties? How is that money channeled to the agencies that would use it for ORV road enforcement such as the State Police or municipal agencies?


First, let me say that posts like this are very helpful in drafting legislation. They're pragmatic.

We can write the ice fishing exception into the law for the existing annual sticker to treat it like snowmobiles. Whether that should happen or not needs to be debated. Less than 1/2 this sticker's proceeds goes to trail maintenance. A portion goes to safety education and much of the rest goes to DNR law enforcment, which we can presume is operating on the surface of frozen public lakes.

The question on funding law enforcement is a very good one. We could require a sherrif's department to have a road patrol as a condition for receiving funds. We could also require that counties disburse a portion of fund received to township, cities and villages in that county based on the proportion of total lane miles open to OHVs each of those units have to the county total. MSP generally will not enforce local OHV ordinances.

Good points.


----------



## bradymsu

Uncle Boopoo said:


> $30.50 for a trail permit is a STEEP increase:yikes:
> 
> Hunting and fishing licenses are not taking that big of a hit, what gives?
> 
> Its not the end of the world, but where does all that money go? It doesn't go to grooming or trail maps because those things only exsist at a bare minimum.


Well, that's the problem. Those things only exist at a bare minimum because there hasn't been an increase in the ORV sticker for years, not even the staged increases that hunting and fishing licenses have had since 1996. And unlike hunters, the number of ORVs is increasing, almost 30% over the past 7 years. If you adjust the trail permit based on inflation since the last increase, you come out to just under $30. With the new annual registration fee, the total cost would come to $36.50 for 2011. Snowmobiles, in comparison, will cost $55 in 2011.

What you're going to see from the increase is primarily more trail grooming and more enforcement.


----------



## foxriver6

A couple of points. I don't believe the sticker on the ORV (currently called an ORV license) was designed exclusively to fund the ORV trail system unlike the snowmobile trail permit. To call the ORV license a trail permit is a misnomer. If more funding is needed for trails, law enforcement and safety education, why not increase the cost of the current ORV license? Refigure the distribution formula of the monies as necessary to allocate percentages to education, DNR law, trails, county sheriff ect....to add another sticker adds bureaucracy. If there is a need to have a registration, morph the current ORV license into an ORV registration. If you want a trail permit, fine, but make it a trail permit and require it only when on the trails. 

A few other points. I don't believe MSP and DNR Conservation Officers can legally enforce local ordinances and that includes county ORV ordinances. So that does pose a problem to counties that want ORV ordinances, have ORV ordinances but don't have a county road patrol. Is the solution to amend state law to allow state agencies (DNR and MSP) to enforce county ordinances? And is this what you want to do? Maybe you leave it on the counties, have a road patrol to enforce your ordinance or lose out on ORV money and not have an enforcable ORV ordinance, catch 22 if you will.

Much of the DNR ORV law enforcement is not visible and occurs off trail. People riding on trail at least in uncogested areas is not a significant natural resource related problem. However, people riding off trail is. Now that is not highly visible law enforcement but that's where the focus of the natural resources law enforcement needs to be, protecting the resources. With that said, almost all the "ticket revenue" generated from ORV state law citations goes to court costs and the library fund. How about reallocating those monies that currently go to the general fund back into the ORV fund? If the monies are coming from the ORV user base, keep it in the community. The legislature can decide if that money is used for trails, law enforcement, safety etc...

Finally, like you do here, consider seeking input from these two websites: www.greatlakes4x4.com and www.atvoffroad.net. You will get a lot more ORV user base input at either of those two sites than you will here.


----------



## CAMODIAK

thanks Foxriver6 for posting the two links.

i pulled this from here and stuck it over there too. The ATV site. Getting heated over there.

i have mixed emotions on the whole deal myself. i brought up a "PLATE" issue years ago, only to get a response of "we don't want the SOS involved in this". 
Now i read the SOS is going to be wel....INVOLVED 

I am all for higher fee's....if the Moneys are spent the right way....

All i hear is a lot of complaints about poor trail maintenance. You know what, groups are getting paid to do these such as ours. 

When i ride a trail that was supposed to be maintained say two weeks after the initial Memorial Day weekend an i am getting slapped in the face by a tunnel of untrimmed trails, i wonder where our money goes?

Maybe someone does not do that trail????
Wrong, get back, Call Monday Morning to ask if there are any trails our club can maintain??

were sorry, all trails have sponsers!!!!! HMMMMMMM


----------



## 2TrakR

> I don't believe MSP and DNR Conservation Officers can legally enforce local ordinances and that includes county ORV ordinances.


State LEOs "may" enforce local laws but are not required to; they are required to enforce State laws. They have the ability to enforce the local ordinances, if they so choose.


----------



## bradymsu

PA 240 provided ORV riders with a lot of new freedoms. Just like with getting one's first car, with new freedom comes new responsiblities and costs. The three main things that need to be addressed with this legislation are:

1. There needs to be a visible means of indentication on ATVs and un-plated motorcycles to help with enforcement, particularly combating trespass on public and private land. I believe these are the only motor vehicles that don't currently have identification on the vehicle. Even boats have identification.

2. There needs to be significantly increased funding for local law enforcement. Local law enforcment was already stretched very thin due to revenue sharing cuts. Many local agencies don't have the manpower to enforce these new ordinances. MSP and Conservation Officers certainly don't either.

3. There needs to be a crackdown on irresponsible parents who let kids use ORVs unsupervised as toys to keep their kids out of their hair.

As for the other websites, I do belong to www.atvoffroad.net. However, there have been too many occassions where I've typed responses on that website only to go to post them and have been logged out by the software. Unlike here, you can't hit the back key and expect what you've written to still be there. Besides, Michigan Sportsman would be happy to have some new members and perhaps they can explore some other areas of outdoor recreation on this site that aren't on the others.


----------



## foxriver6

2TrakR said:


> State LEOs "may" enforce local laws but are not required to; they are required to enforce State laws. They have the ability to enforce the local ordinances, if they so choose.


With some exceptions, state LEOs cannot enforce municipal ordinances. If you can show me where in law that says they can, please let me know.

MCL 28.583 allows for public bodies to create law enforcement agencies that can enforce state laws and local ordinances

MCL 600.8707 says: (1) An authorized local official who witnesses a person violate an ordinance a violation of which is a municipal civil infraction shall prepare and subscribe, as soon as possible and as completely as possible, an original and 3 copies of a citation, except as provided in subsection (6). 

(a) &#8220;Authorized local official&#8221; means a police officer or other personnel of a county, city, village, township, or regional parks and recreation commission created under section 2 of Act No. 265 of the Public Acts of 1961, being section 46.352 of the Michigan Compiled Laws, legally authorized to issue municipal civil infraction citations.

MCL 41.81 says: 

The sheriff, department of state police, or other local law enforcement agency shall, if called upon, provide special police protection for the township and enforce local township ordinances to the extent that township funds are appropriated for the enforcement.


----------



## bradymsu

Regardless, the Michigan State Police and DNR Law Enforcement Division lack the resources to adequately enforce state laws and conservation orders. And their budgets are not going to improve in the near future. The local units of government that adopt these ORV ordinances have the obligation to either enforce them or conclude that enforcement isn't necessary in their communities.


----------



## wally-eye

Brady I want to thank you for doing what you can to bring more opportunities to the ORV users in this state. I know it's been a long and difficult slog and your help is greatly appreciated.


----------



## DowHunter

I have posted a link to this on greatlakes4x4 under the quad and bike section. I really have nothing to add to the conversation though since I am more into fullsize off roading.


----------



## Swamp Monster

So if one were to only use their ATV on their personal private land, would an annual registration still be required? Or is this to go along with the current trail permit for public land use only? A bit confused. I've had my atv for 4 years, purchased new and don't have a registration for it but I have purchased an "ORV" sticker in the past. 
Personally, I don't mind the fees if enforcement and education will be increased and or better funded.


----------



## bradymsu

Swamp Monster said:


> So if one were to only use their ATV on their personal private land, would an annual registration still be required? Or is this to go along with the current trail permit for public land use only? A bit confused. I've had my atv for 4 years, purchased new and don't have a registration for it but I have purchased an "ORV" sticker in the past.
> Personally, I don't mind the fees if enforcement and education will be increased and or better funded.


The new registration portion will mirror snowmobile law on these types of issues. I believe that one does need to have a snowmobile registration even for operation only on private property. But, I could be wrong on that.


----------



## plugger

I beleive orvs used for ice fishing should be exempted as are snowmobiles. Ice fisherman dont need or benifit from trails or increased enforccement.


----------



## bradymsu

The plan is to include an exemption for the trail permit for accessing the frozen surface of a lake just like for snowmobiles. OHV trail permits would only be required to access state trails and area open to OHVs. This suggestion was brought up by someone earlier in this thread.


----------



## MUDDY4LIFE

For those of you who are rather new to the politics of ORVing in Michigan, let me state for the record that under our current 16.25 ORV sticker fee's, that [ for YEARS now ] there has been FAR TOO much abuse and mismanagement of these current 16.25 ORV sticker funds that MUST be addressed BEFORE the legislature should address even one ORVer for a ORV sticker fee increase.

Currently, little more than half of YOUR ORV dollars go to trail maintenance..When a Grant Sponsor agree's to take on a trail, this Grant Sponsor is suppose to follow TRAIL SPEC GUIDLINES outlined in their trail maintenance manual. For example, the manual indicates that there is suppose to be the orange triangular confidence markers spaced at EVERY 0.1 mile intervals..So esentially, there should be 10 confidence trail markers for every mile of ORV trail in Michigan :lol: ..

Tell me something ORV riders?
*When's the last time YOU rode a trail that was PROPERLY marked with confidence markers properly spaced  Yet, the DNR continue to PAY out funding for this service from YOUR ORV dollars.

*How many times have YOU or a friend rode a part of Michigans Designated ORV trail system that was not properly marked, come to a UNMARKED Y on the trail, only to pick the WRONG trailway of this Y and have a LEO waiting on the OTHER side of this trailway to issue YOU a citation for riding where you are not suppose to be?This is NOT YOUR fault and YOU should not have to pay a citation for this BUT it happens ALL THE TIME..INSTEAD of issuing citations to the innocent ORV riders and CHASING them AWAY from ORV riding in Michigan, WHY are we not FIXING and ADDRESSING this issue by installing the PROPER SIGNAGE? NOW THE LEGISLATURE REQUESTS EVEN MORE OF YOUR ORV $$ BEFORE WE/THEY ADDRESS/CORRECT THIS MISMANAGEMENT

TRAIL CLEARANCE STANDARDS
Trails/Routes should be cleared of brush, branches, and obstructions within dimensions according to the following guidlines..Remove tree's,brush, and bushes flush with the ground level or below. Do NOT leave exposed stumps.Remove branches flush with the trunk or main branch so as not to leave projecting pickets.
MOTORCYCLE TRAILS*are to be cleared to 24 inches width at ground level and 40 inches at handlebar level up to 8ft.
ATV TRAILS* are to be cleared to 50 inches width up to 8 feet high.
ORV ROUTES* are to be cleared to 72 inches width up to 8 feet high. 

FYI
Very few ORV trails in Michigan are within the above trail maintenance standards. We still have FAR too many trails that have tree branches smacking us up against our helmets, far too many trails that are improperly marked,YET, LEGISLATION WANTS MORE OF YOUR ORV DOLLARS TO SPEND ON EVEN MORE MISMANAGEMENT

ORV SAFETY EDUCATION
This is a JOKE at BEST! Michigan mandates that all ORV operators under the age of 16 MUST go thru a COMPREHENSIVE ORV safety education course and be under the direct visual supervision of an adult when operating.

Lets refer to 324.81129 [ 8 ] 
THE DEPARTMENT SHALL IMPLEMENT A COMPREHENSIVE ORV INFORMATION, SAFETY EDUCATION, AND TRAINING PROGRAM THAT SHALL INCLUDE THE TRAINING OF OPERATORS AND THE PREPARATION AND DISSEMINATION OF INFORMATION AND SAFETY ADVICE TO THE PUBLIC. THE PROGRAM SHALL PROVIDE FOR THE TRAINING OF YOUTHFUL OPERATORS AND FOR THE ISSUANCE OF ORV SAFETY CERTIFICATES TO THOSE WHO SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETE THE TRAINING PROVIDIED UNDER THE PROGRAM AND MAY INCLUDE SEPERATE INSTRUCTION FOR EACH TYPE OF ORV.

What a freaking JOKE this is..There is NOTHING ''comprehensive'' about the DNRs ORV safety Education course and I beleive it violates section [ 8 ] of 329.81129...Far too many of the instructors hired under the DNR's Administrastion are PATHETIC and most of these instructors dont even own a ATV/Dirt Bike.Most of these guys were hired on the mere fact that they wear a LEO badge of some type and have NOT been properly trained [ if at all? ] to Instruct a ORV safety course. HOWEVER, its a HUGE CASH COW for many of the cops who were hired under the DNRs Adminstration to instruct a ORV safety class. Law enforcement instructors are allowed to SUCK 20 bucks per student from the ORV safety education portion of YOUR current 16.25 ORV sticker fee's..Wayne County Sheriff Dept reported that for Fiscal Year 2008, that they trained a total of 2476 kids and they did this with only doing 37 classes.. Thats 67 kids in EVERY ORV safety class and at 20 bucks per kid, thats an AMAZING 1338.00 per class taught that comes out of YOUR current 16.25 ORV sticker fee's to teach a safety course that I beleive violates the State Statue of 324.81129 [8] ..I PERSONALLY reported this violation to Joel Sheltrowns office on 3-24-09 with a written statement of the violation, and to date, not a single word from him or his staff regarding this issue.If we cant get our own legislatures and Reps to look into a issue as important as our kids own ORV safety and improperly taught classes/instructors, HOW are we as ORV user groups suppose to TRUST them when they come to us for more $$?

AND,
The law that allows a kid to operate a Dirt Bike [ ORV ] at ANY age on Michigans designated trails but only allows a kid 12 or older to operate an ATV ,is FAR TOO outdated [ 1991 law ] and also needs to be updated and amended.

Folks, this is the SAME committee that is writting the Bill to INCREASE your ORV sticker fee's WITHOUT addressing ANY of the issues I have outlined above.

bradymsu might paint a pretty picture to some of you uneducated folks and lead you to beleive that the DNR NEED this increase in ORV sticker dollars for future improvements within our ORV sport, WITHOUT telling you the entire story about how the current mismanagment of funding is being WASTED by the DNR.

I dont think there is an ORVer in Michigan that would say a damn thing about this 30.50 ORV sticker IF our current mismanagment issues were addressed and corrected first.But just like most politicians, the REAL story is only painted on ONE SIDE!


----------



## MUDDY4LIFE

Annual registration fee's of $ 6.00 per ORV not already plated by the State would be established. Just like the $ 30.50 ORV sticker, the $ 6.00 registration sticker would also have to be renewed April 1st of EVERY year.

Please contact the Speaker of the House thru e-mail at

[email protected]

and request that he OPPOSE this new legislation when it is brought forward to him.

Also, contact the sponser of this new proposed legislation 

*Representative Joel Sheltrown at
[email protected]

and express your displeasure to him for bringing up such redicules legislation at a time when his office refuses to address other issues of misuse and abuse from our current $ 16.25 ORV sticker fee's.

IF you do NOTHING but come in here and cry about this, than YOU are part of the problem and deserve whatever may become of this new legislation.

Now lets do the right thing and make contact with the folks who need to hear from us!


----------



## Jnamo

Enough is enough...the Gov. says inflation and budgets and yada~yada are going up so we need to raise fee's. At the same time, companies have pay freezes and are giving no raises to those of us who have jobs. 

Just like SEMORE said, pretty soon it will only be the top 10% of Michiganders able to afford the outdoors. 

I am sick of all the fee's and gouging that is taking place.


----------



## MUDDY4LIFE

Cant blame this one on the Governor Jenny.

This new proposed legislation for a ORV sticker increase and registration fee is coming from Representative Sheltrown's office.

What really hits me hard here is the fact that this same Representative's office knows quite well about the waste and abuse of our current 16.25 ORV sticker fee's, and with this knowledge, they have the stones to write new legislation that would allow the DNR to waste even MORE of our ORV $$ without FIRST addressing and FIXING what's broke first.

Political BS @ its best

Except for me, how many of you folks who are in here complaining, have sent your e-mails in?


----------



## ahoude23

bradymsu said:


> I agree with you that reform and greater transparency is needed in the DNR. But I don't agree that this is going to be accomplished by starving the DNR to death. The long and short of it is, if you recreate on public land, you should expect to pay to do so. And you should expect those fees to increase as the general fund contribution to the DNR decreases as well as with inflation. As for private land, I agree that no one should be required to buy a trail permit to ride on their own land.



The whole purpose of having public land is so the public can use it. If I choose to use public land and I don't hurt myself or others, and I don't destroy it, I should be able to use it how I see fit (I do accept reasonable limitations on use). I should not have to pay an access fee (ORV permit) to access lands held by the state for public use. what about other users of public land? Where is the birdwatching permit? How about a hiking permit? Horseback riding permit? Permit to hunt on public land??? Two user groups are being singled out for fees (ORV and Snowmobile) when there are many other user groups using public land for no fee. I pay to recreate on public land every time the state takes income tax from my paycheck.

Why should there be a registration fee and sticker for OHV's. Because they are the only motor vehicle that doesn't have one is not a legitimate reason. There is no reason except to bring in $.

ATV's should be allowed on all public non paved (gravel) roads on the right side and under 25 mph. No exceptions.

If the mission of the DNR and its CO's is important (I believe it is), the state should adequately fund that expenditure. All police officers can enforce state laws, right? If a county,city,town,ect. does not have a road patrol, then they have to live with the concequences of that choice. The state shound not rob from the budget of the DNR and expect to make it up with user fees. 

The public lands in the state belong to everyone and are we all are responsible to maintain them. If you choose not to use them, feel free to make that choice. They are here for the benefit of the public and should be the responsibility of the public to pay for their upkeep, not just a select few user groups.


----------



## Quadd4

ahoude23 said:


> ATV's should be allowed on all public non paved (gravel) roads on the right side *and under 25 mph*. No exceptions.


It was like the wild west of ORV's over the labor day weekend. I nearly had a run in with a quad who seemed to want to occupy the LH side of the open county road around a corner no less while racing his buddy on a dirt bike. I'm all for opportunity but to think that the majority of these riders can control them selves by staying in single file and under 25 mph along the shoulder is a joke. With the lack of DNR to enforce the law it just a free for all. It'll all get tore up and ruin it for the guys that obey the rules.
Sorry for the rant.


----------



## S.E.M.O.R.E.

ahoude23 said:


> The whole purpose of having public land is so the public can use it. If I choose to use public land and I don't hurt myself or others, and I don't destroy it, I should be able to use it how I see fit (I do accept reasonable limitations on use). *I should not have to pay an access fee (ORV permit) to access lands held by the state for public use.* what about other users of public land? Where is the birdwatching permit? How about a hiking permit? Horseback riding permit? Permit to hunt on public land??? Two user groups are being singled out for fees (ORV and Snowmobile) when there are many other user groups using public land for no fee. I pay to recreate on public land every time the state takes income tax from my paycheck.
> 
> Why should there be a registration fee and sticker for OHV's. Because they are the only motor vehicle that doesn't have one is not a legitimate reason. There is no reason except to bring in $.
> 
> ATV's should be allowed on all public non paved (gravel) roads on the right side and under 25 mph. No exceptions.
> 
> *If the mission of the DNR and its CO's is important (I believe it is), the state should adequately fund that expenditure*. All police officers can enforce state laws, right? If a county,city,town,ect. does not have a road patrol, then they have to live with the concequences of that choice. The state shound not rob from the budget of the DNR and expect to make it up with user fees.
> 
> The public lands in the state belong to everyone and are we all are responsible to maintain them. If you choose not to use them, feel free to make that choice. They are here for the benefit of the public and should be the responsibility of the public to pay for their upkeep, not just a select few user groups.


*You DO realize* that a snowmobile trail permit is REQUIRED TO OPERATE A SNOWMOBILE *ANYWHERE* IN MICHIGAN correct? It's not just to operate on state land, it's required even on your OWN property.

The ATV association is following in step right behind the Michigan Snowmobile Association with the trail permit B.S.

I have no objection to paying for trail grooming by those who use them, but I am totally opposed to being FORCED to support MSA's agenda to ride my snowmobile on my own property, my neighbors property, or anywhere I am not utilizing groomed trails.

Snowmobile registration's covered law enforcement, safety and training, and trail development. MSA via the Snowmobile Advisory Committee managed to COMBINE the registration fee's collected WITH the trail permit fees several years back. Their recent lobby effort hiked those MANDATORY trail permit fees to 35 this year and 45 next year, AND increased the REGISTRATION fees. But here's the real jab in the ribs: THEY ARE FIGHTING TO KEEP THE DNR FROM GETTING THE LAW ENFORCEMENT FUNDING! For a supposed non profit all volunteer organization, they are pretty greedy in my opinion.

Were being gouged for our money. We get identified as having expendable income, and predators zero in on us for their cut. 



Quadd4 said:


> It was like the wild west of ORV's over the labor day weekend. I nearly had a run in with a quad who seemed to want to occupy the LH side of the open county road around a corner no less while racing his buddy on a dirt bike. I'm all for opportunity but to think that the majority of these riders can control them selves by staying in single file and under 25 mph along the shoulder is a joke. With the lack of DNR to enforce the law it just a free for all. It'll all get tore up and ruin it for the guys that obey the rules.
> Sorry for the rant.


Thank the eco-freaks. Your DEQ, Ted Turner, Sierra CLub, Most of Benzie County, the Pigeon River group, and any other cynics out there opposed to motorized recreation who successfully managed to broom ATV's out of the wilderness.

IN a COMMENDABLE EFFORT, Rep Sheltrown legislated to allow operation of ATV's in Michigan after they were all but banned in northern lower Michigan, and the DNR's little stunt of playing cop to keep ATV's off of county roads authorized by the sheriffs, who ARE IN CHARGE of county roads. DNR lost the court battle, and followed up by berming up the legal 2 track destinations atv's were accessing via the county road system. Unfortunately, with the DEQ and Eco-Freak hysteria, ATV's were left with operation on established roadways ONLY. ABSURD!!!

Michigan legislated that an off road only atv may only be operated on a roadway! So to correct that, were going to re-define ATV's, create specific trails, charge 30.00 today, and who knows how much the grant sponsors will lobby for in the future, and in the end run, fools engaged in the activity will lament, hey, IF YOU WANT TO PLAY YOU GOT TO PAY!

YOUR rant, will usher in new legislation limiting ATV use SOLEY to authorized ATV trails PERIOD. The snowmobiles are in their sights too, they just cannot get around the fact there is NO trace of snowmobile activity once the snow melts.


The redundancy of Michigans method of operation, restricting, taxing, mandating fees yet promoting get outside just angers me to the point of foolishness. BUT even MORE foolish is the apathy, ignorance and selfishness of those user groups who drink the kool-aid, and allow the mindwash to convince them these non profit associations are fighting for them.

Snowmobile registrations are taking a nosedive, and right now ATV's are on the upswing. In a few years it will be something else, registration numbers will drop, the funding will drop, so the fees will increase, and more will be priced out of recreating in Michigan. Soon, NOBODY will bother with motorized recreation which is EXACTLY what the special interest groups want, and THEN they can concentrate on banning the rest of the wilderness invasions, most specifically HUNTING.

THERE's AGENDA's OUT HERE FOLKS! The ANTI's ARE IN LANSING, and they are incrementally winning because we let them.

I DO respect your position about the careless operation of the ATV's on the roadways. A lot of the sport is the speed, and a nice smooth country roadway is very inviting for that need for speed. People are going to get hurt and possibly die. Fact is, we cannot make the world idiot proof, no matter how many laws we pass or how expensive we make it. Unfortunately, the legislators think they can and try to convince us they do.


----------



## hungry hunter

I guess I am missing something here, it sounds to me like there is just giong to be a huge increase in the liscense fee and to top it off a new registration fee and a bunch of red tape to hassel with each year. what exactly is the problem??? I ride the trails alot and have yet to encounter any problem that i felt necesarry to throw any more money at. what a huge pain this is going to turn into,every year standing in long lines at the sos to register a damn atv. I don't like this at all,it'stoo expensive and too much of a hassel for no real benefit. please correct me if I am wrong


----------



## Jnamo

hungry hunter said:


> I guess I am missing something here, it sounds to me like there is just giong to be a huge increase in the liscense fee and to top it off a new registration fee and a bunch of red tape to hassel with each year. what exactly is the problem??? I ride the trails alot and have yet to encounter any problem that i felt necesarry to throw any more money at. what a huge pain this is going to turn into,every year standing in long lines at the sos to register a damn atv. I don't like this at all,it'stoo expensive and too much of a hassel for no real benefit. please correct me if I am wrong


No correction...you are right


----------



## MUDDY4LIFE

Dont forget to get your e-mails in, and SOON.

I just got word that this new proposed legislation to increase our ORV stickers to 30.50 and force us to purchase 6.00 registrations on a yearly basis, will be written and presented in just a FEW weeks.

Remember,
if you do nothing but sit in this forum and complain and this 30.50 legislation passes, your part of the problem.


----------



## hitechman

Well, the first quarter of 2010 is coming to a close................any one know if any action/progress has been taken/made on this???

Steve




bradymsu said:


> Here is the long awaited 2010 ORV (now to be "OHV") legislation. Intelligent feedback, as always, is welcome.
> 
> 
> Version: July 21, 2009 (Pre-Draft #1)
> ​*2010 OHV Comprehensive Legislation*
> ​
> _This legislation impacts numerous sections of __Michigan__ ORV law. It is referred to as the "2010 Comprehensive" to distinguish it from other ORV legislation. The legislation is based on public comment and the contribution of various user groups. It is a work in progress. Changes are anticipated throughout the legislative process. The summary below reflects the status of the legislation as of the date listed above._
> 
> _The 2010 Comprehensive would increase funding for trail maintenance and law enforcement on public land and county roads. It seeks to better address problems regarding public and private trespass and unsupervised youth operation. It would improve OHV safety education. It would clean-up issues identified with PA 240'08, apply PA 240'08 state-wide and make that law permanent._
> 
> 
> *Summary of changes:*
> 
> References to "Off-road vehicle" and "ORV" in Michigan law would be changed to "Off-highway vehicle and "OHV" to reflect federal law.
> 
> The cost of an annual trail permit would increase to $30.50. Of that, $14.50 would go to trail maintenance, $14.50 to department operations, enforcement and special initiatives, $1 to OHV safety education, and 50 cents to the license vendor.
> 
> An annual registration of OHVs not already plated by the state would be established. The cost of the annual registration would be $6. Of that, $1 would go to the Secretary of State for administration and 50 cents would go to OHV safety education. The remaining money would be dispersed to county sheriffs where county roads are opened to OHVs pursuant to PA 240'08 in a ratio proportional to the number of OHV lane miles open in each county to the state total. The registration would expire on April 1 of each year. Otherwise, the registration process would be closely based on the current snowmobile registration process.
> 
> Along with a certificate of registration, the Secretary of State would establish and issue an identifying decal under rules promulgated by that department that would be displayed on the OHV. The registration decal would not be required for OHVs that are already plated through the Secretary of State or have a current plate or current registration decal from another state or a province of Canada.
> 
> OHV registrations would be included in the Law Enforcement Information Network (LEIN).
> 
> Any county, township, city or village in the state would be able to open its local roads under PA 240. PA 240 would no longer be restricted to northern Michigan.
> 
> The Michigan Transportation Commission would be able to permanently, seasonally or temporarily authorize the travel of OHVs on short stretches of state highways that have a speed limit at or below 45 miles per hour.
> 
> The location of operation on county roads would be clarified to include maintained shoulders.
> 
> The language allowing county road commissions to close up to 30% of county roads for environmental or safety reasons would be clarified to reflect the original intent of PA 240.
> 
> Language would be added to authorize local units of government to permit the travel of OHVs on roads maintained with state or local funds that pass through or along federal forest lands.
> 
> Penalties would be doubled for trespass on private and public lands, unsupervised youth operation and operating an OHV without a helmet except where helmet use is not currently required.
> 
> The definition of an ATV would be amended to reflect the language of HB 5087.
> 
> The MDNR would establish an OHV Safety Training Academy to train and license OHV Safety instructors. These instructors would be compensated through rules promulgated by the department through the OHV Safety Training Fund at a rate of not more than $20 per student. Licensed OHV safety instructors would not be allowed to charge an additional fee for classroom instruction but would be allowed to charge a fee for optional hands-on instruction desired by the parent or student.
> 
> A free riding day would be established the third Saturday in May where an OHV trail sticker or OHV registration is not required.
> 
> Liability limits would be established for trail maintenance organizations equal to that provided to organizations that groom snowmobile trails.
> 
> The threshold for an organized group event on state land would be increased to 75 vehicles unless the group is collecting a fee for the event.
> 
> Language would be added to define "primitive road" and clarify that primitive roads are closed to OHV traffic.
> 
> The PA 240 sunset would be removed.


----------



## 2TrakR

Draft language is with the legislation, waiting for the "bluebacks" to be put together and for it to start working it's way through the legislators.


----------



## MUDDY4LIFE

Jeramey,
how can the general public veiw these blue-backs BEFORE they hit the legislators?

Now that Sheltrown is out of the picture with this 2010 ORV legislation, what legislator is now drafting up the new laungauge now that Sheltrown is out? 

Bill


----------



## pilsbury38

Looks like everything else, the amount of money i make keeps going down, and the amount i have to pay out keeps going up:sad: sooner or later it has to stop or we will all be in line behind one another to file bankruptcy.


----------



## MUDDY4LIFE

You guys who oppose this 30.50 ORV sticker need to e-mail the so called brains behind this unjustified expense. His name is Dick Ranney and can be reached at

[email protected]

Advise him that BEFORE he goes after legislation to raise our ORV sticker fee's, he MUST address the years of deciet, waste, and gross mismanagement of our current 16.25 ORV sticker first. Let him know that your paycheck does not come from a tree and that you demand that the DNRE be held ACCOUNTABLE for the past shortcomings within the ORV program before you will ever accept an increase in your ORV Sticker fee's.

Get all your ORVing friends to e-mail him to.


----------



## hitechman

Any news on this legislation?

Steve


----------



## MUDDY4LIFE

It is in Committee and has four bill numbers,

*6159
*6160
*6161
*6162

You and all your fellow ORVers are urged to IMMEDIALTELY contact the members of the House Committee of Tourism, Outdoor Recreation and Natural Resources and ask them for a vote of NO, tell them, 

THE STANDARD PRACTICE OF INCREASING USER FEE'S TO COVER POOR MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FROM THE DNRE MUST BE STOPPED!

*Joel Sheltrown 1517-373-3817

*Jim Slezak -1517 373-3906

*Kate Ebli 1517-373-2617

*Mike Huckleberry 1517-373-0834

*Steve Lindberg 1517-373-0498

*Mike Simpson 1517-373-1775

*Woodrow Stanley 1517-373-8808

*Jim Stamas 1517-373-1791

*James Bolger 1517-373-1787

*Goeff Hansen 1517-373-7317

*Kenneth Horn 1517-373-0837


----------



## MUDDY4LIFE

MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE OF TOURISM,OUTDOOR RECREATION & NATURAL RESOURCES [ e-mail addresses ] 

*[email protected]

*[email protected]

*[email protected]

*[email protected]

*[email protected]

*[email protected]

*[email protected]

*[email protected]

*[email protected]

*[email protected]

*[email protected]

Besides a phone call to all the above mentioned Reps, its also a very good idea to include an e-mail to all of them as well. Let them know how you feel about their new ORV legislation.

If you do nothing about this, than we deserve what we get.


----------



## JimP

Unless there's a post somewhere else, this bill was introduced 5/12/2010.
It's a complete remake of many ORV(now OHV)requirements including registration like a car and carried on the person. Also funding for off highway needs.
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2009-2010/billintroduced/House/htm/2010-HIB-6159.htm


----------



## MUDDY4LIFE

jimp,
much of this new legislation is not so good as written, Here's why.

*Under our current 16.25 ORV sticker fee's, we already provide for trail maintenance. Most trails are not maintained to standards outlined in the trail maintenance handbook [ for MANY year now ] ,but yet, grant sponsors almost always still get paid. This is gross mismanagement of our current funding, and needs to be addressed and corrected BEFORE any increase of user fee's are adopted.Some proponents of this 30.50 trail permit sticker will want you to beleive that we NEED this extra money to put down an additional 800 miles of ORV trails and to support PA 240, however,if we cant properly take care of the existing 3000 miles of ORV trails [ for AGES now ] WHY should ANYONE beleive that the extra funding will support an additonal 800 miles of trails?

*We already give up about 33% of every 16.25 ORV sticker fee to Law Enforcement. WHY do we now need to give Law Enforcement an additional 15.00 dollars from a 20.00 registration fee for?

Some will say that they want the ORV program to ''model'' the snowmobile program. Well,many snowmobile folks I talk to also feel like they are being ripped off. The snowmobile program does not require their users to TITLE their vehicles. ORVs are required to be titled and thus this also should provide more $$ for our sport. ORVers dont need the added dollars of a registration fee---this is a rip-off fee IMO.

*Much of the ORV safety program is a JOKE @ best and so are many of those that run the program. The DNRE has had 7 years to make this program right. In 7 years, they have gone thru 5 ORV Safety Coordinators and thur far, have adopted NO standardized ORV program anywhere in the State.The DNRE dropped the Administrative rules that dictated the program and certification process for instructors. The end result is, inept and often untrained Instructors teaching YOUR kids material they themselves have little/no knowledge in.They dropped the mandidtory ''hands on'' training and most instructors teach only a 1 to 7 hour ''classroom only'' class.

Lets take a look at the NEW standards that our Michigan legislators want to adopt for the States Chief ORV Coordinator.

Now the DNRE can self appoint ANYONE within their department and send them thru a 4 day Nationally adopted ORV Safety program which can automatically define them as the State's Chief ORV Safety Coordinator. This person does not even have to posses a major background in off road use. This person does not even have to posses much riding experience.The department must figure that the little ORV rider training that a DNRE candidate goes thru when they are going thru the DNRE Academy, is sufficient, I can tell you with 42 years of riding experience, that it is NOT enough training to be classified as a ORV training Coordinator. The ATV Safety Institute makes you go thru at least 2 years of hands on training BEFORE they will even coincider accepting you for training as a CHIEF INSTRUCTOR [ someone who trains others to become a ORV safety Instructor ] 

So, here we have some uneducated, and inexperienced, departmental appointed DNRE personel, trying to tell someone like myself who has taught 1000's of ORV safety classes on a State and National level, WHAT I NEED TO BE TEACHING in my ORV safety classes.

Thats like getting your 16 year old thru drivers education class, than having the State of Michigan appoint him/her as the State's new Driver's Education Director. Does not make ANY sense.

Im not saying that I dont support SOME increase in user fee's,but we must first address the years of deceit and mismanagement and make sure we hold those responsible for our ORV program, ACCOUNTABLE. 

This ORV legislation was poorly thought out and rushed. Some of the players like myself, were given the ''closed door policy'' when this new legislation was being sought.

Thats one of many reasons why some of this legislation is a mess.


----------



## bradymsu

hitechman said:


> Any news on this legislation?
> 
> Steve


Sorry for the three week delay. I didn't notice your post and Riva failed to do his duty and inform me of it. :lol:

The OHV bills were introduced last month. There have been four public committee hearings in Lansing on the bills to date. The Michigan Motorized Recreation Council has also held four public meetings in the UP and NLP. We will continue to take public comment on the bills all summer and vote on them after Labor Day.


----------



## MUDDY4LIFE

If you guys can veiw this post, we got a good one going on about this topic in the 

'SOUND OFF' section of these forums under the heading of

SOME LANSING POLITICIANS JUST DONT CARE!


----------

