"I think you may have misread Yett's description of the legislation being discussed. The bill that was recently introduced does not require any county to do anything specific...."
And I suppose that I'm not making myself clear either; as I'm pointing out that the counties affected by new impacts on their right aways do not have the 'option' of not doing anything when they are put in charge of maintaining these new paths.
"... It would give the authority back to the county (or clarify the county's authority, depending on how you view it) to determine if they will open the road shoulders of their county to ATV users..."
Again, I hate to quote the bill sponsor's website once again; yet the authority to open these roadsides is in fact the most insignificant authority in this whole process.
"....Under the proposed legislation, a county commission can open county road shoulders to ORVs or can allow a local municipality to make that decision. A county road commission would (also) have the authority to close a percentage of county roads to ORVs if the environment or public safety is seriously threatened...."
I can get my local county board member or commissioner to force my local road commission into doing a lot of things. (unfunded mandates being the major reason that many of our roads are in so much trouble now).
Yet when the road commission is given the power to evaluate any and all environmental impact concerning your 'side road' and close the damn thing down if you didn't even initially approach them with a responsible plan to help them come up with a way to fund/maintain these sloped trails in the first place?....you've just planted a big mine in the harbor before you've even had the chance to lift anchor and leave port.
Again, this is exactly the same scenario we had a few years ago when the cycle guys were pointing to the vast amount of "irreversibly damaged" trails that should be shut down for "study"....yet when the time came to suggest a fee increase from our approaching criminal and long held down $16.25 per year....these guys came up with LESS of a percentage coming out for actual maintenance of the system and 3 times the present amount going into "safety subsidies"!!!.
The above is an undeniable fact and frankly one that I believe we should be pretty damn ashamed of. The committee formed to supposedly give our DNR the community's opinion on the next much larger fee increase acts as if they are 'immune' form giving us even a simple 'progress report' at every meeting since they spirited this hugely important discussion away and out of public view.
And with the "22,000 member representative council' being just as secretive and in fact anonymous to this day....(exactly how many millions are on the line here with the unfrozen funds; huge fee increase; etc. etc.?) you can see why these guys attack all comers with a vengeance.
Last edited by OneManBanned; February 10th, 2007 at 05:32 PM.