Is your run legal ?? - Page 3 - Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest

Go Back   Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest > 4x4 Land Use > Rules, Regulations, Trail, and ORV Park Chat
GL4x4 Live! GL4x4 Casino

greatlakes4x4.com is the premier Great Lakes 4x4 Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.
Search
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old November 19th, 2006, 04:35 PM   #41
One Arm Steve
I was born in the desert
 
One Arm Steve's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-20-05
Location: Harrison
Posts: 1,719
iTrader: (4)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Not just invite them but put them behind the wheel.
One Arm Steve is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old November 19th, 2006, 07:48 PM   #42
deathdealer
Senior Member
 
deathdealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: 02-08-06
Location: Ypsilanti, MI
Posts: 1,637
iTrader: (0)
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 4x Fanatic View Post
The Bay City event is is called and is registered as the "Labadie Pig Gig". This is just another one of hundreds of "pig gigs" that happen throughout the country. Cincinnati's "Big Pig Gig" is the original and largest according Wikipedia. As long as it is called "Yogi's Pig Gig" in it's advertisements and literature, all is good.

Its probably not a copyright for the name but most likely a trademark for the logo.
deathdealer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 4th, 2006, 12:15 PM   #43
yogi
swampstomper & old fart
 
yogi's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-06-05
Location: LAINGSBURG
Posts: 2,934
iTrader: (6)
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Default

and more it looks to me likes to play the fence and stir the pot

glad to know who you realy are
yogi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 4th, 2006, 02:42 PM   #44
fr3db3ar
KISS MY AVATAR
 
fr3db3ar's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-06-05
Location: Holland
Posts: 5,429
iTrader: (5)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Send a message via ICQ to fr3db3ar Send a message via AIM to fr3db3ar Send a message via Yahoo to fr3db3ar
Default

Make sure you also differentiate between state and federal land.
fr3db3ar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 5th, 2006, 09:08 AM   #45
Grandman
do i look old !
 
Grandman's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: West Branch Mi
Posts: 9,864
iTrader: (7)
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Default

Theres been a long run to close public land . Lame duck area in Gladwin county . Huge parcel of land closed to any thing with a wheel . Hunters thought it was great until they figured out they couldnt use a wheel borrow to take bait in the woods .

It has little or nothing to do with collecting money , other wise they would make it easy to pay and go .

They are squezing all the wheeled out doors groups into smaller and smaller areas , this will make it easy for them to point out the high erosion caused seems things are concentrated into one area . Then they will gain the support to close that too .

Joel Sheltron is from West Branch and is a pretty decent guy by the way . He lacks the political back ground to get much done unfortunately .
Grandman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 5th, 2006, 08:42 PM   #46
CreativeFab
used to be Ironman
 
CreativeFab's Avatar
 
Join Date: 12-01-05
Location: midland
Posts: 3,215
iTrader: (35)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandman View Post
What ever happened to the " Right to assemble " ? They put that in the constitution for a reason . That is where i think there Admin rule could end up FUBAR .


They can make any rule they want , that doesnt mean it is legal . They do not have the right to over ride the constitution .
Exactly!

A few of us would like to test this theory, anyone up for an organized 20+ people "trail ride"?

I have heard a rumor that the mudchuggers might not have pulled a permit for the last 2 Sno-blinds. (if someone can clarify that would be great) If this is true we have our answer! The Mudchuggers would have set the precident!!! This is a good thing people.

this in no way has anything to do with the GLFWDA, I am posting for myself and not acting as a representitive of GLFWDA

Last edited by CreativeFab; December 6th, 2006 at 09:56 AM. Reason: facial expressions and tone not understood in type written words
CreativeFab is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 5th, 2006, 10:43 PM   #47
Roadhouse
DrivewayJeeper
 
Roadhouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Sanford
Posts: 10,956
iTrader: (5)
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironman View Post

A few of us would like to test this theory, anyone up for an organized 20+ people "trail ride"?
Yes I already said that before at some meetings. I honestly think their policy/law is bullshit.
Roadhouse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 5th, 2006, 11:20 PM   #48
Roadhouse
DrivewayJeeper
 
Roadhouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Sanford
Posts: 10,956
iTrader: (5)
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by yogi View Post
and more it looks to me likes to play the fence and stir the pot

glad to know who you realy are
Roadhouse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 6th, 2006, 08:58 AM   #49
amc78cj7
Senior Member
 
amc78cj7's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-07-05
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 5,354
iTrader: (9)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandman View Post

The rule says that if more then 10 people , not vehicles but 10 people are in one place that is an event . So 10 of us go to pick blue berrys we need a permit . Nice eh .
That's steuped.
__________________
I'm not quoting idiots who promote unsafe recovery strap techniques anymore. :miff:
amc78cj7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 6th, 2006, 09:03 AM   #50
yogi
swampstomper & old fart
 
yogi's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-06-05
Location: LAINGSBURG
Posts: 2,934
iTrader: (6)
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironman View Post
Exactly!

A few of us would like to test this theory, anyone up for an organized 20+ people "trail ride"?

I have heard a rumor that the mudchuggers might not have pulled a permit for the last 2 Sno-blinds. (if someone can clarify that would be great) If this is true we have our answer!


if thats the case why did you get a permit for your snow run
yogi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 6th, 2006, 09:15 AM   #51
CreativeFab
used to be Ironman
 
CreativeFab's Avatar
 
Join Date: 12-01-05
Location: midland
Posts: 3,215
iTrader: (35)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by yogi View Post
if thats the case why did you get a permit for your snow run

It's not my run, I had nothing to do with it. It is not even a GLFWDA event. The SnoFari is a SOFO event which GL sanctioned. When a GL club wants to host a run they can do whatever they want, if they want to sanction it they can if they dont they dont. If they pull permits it is their choice.

The SOFO club obviously thought it to be in their best interest to sanction their event and utilize the GLFWDA insurance policy. This policy protects the club on a couple different levels, one of which is to satisfy the DNR permit reqiurements since they chose to pull the (directors ordered) required permits.

I for one wouldnt be comfortable having a GLFWDA member club test the waters and try to set a precident for the rest of the Assoc. or for that matter the entire gaggle of user groups that fall under this rediculous directors order.

Last edited by CreativeFab; December 6th, 2006 at 09:25 AM.
CreativeFab is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 6th, 2006, 09:25 AM   #52
silverxj
Recovering XJ owner
 
silverxj's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Michigan
Posts: 5,620
iTrader: (64)
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironman View Post
Exactly!

A few of us would like to test this theory, anyone up for an organized 20+ people "trail ride"?

I have heard a rumor that the mudchuggers might not have pulled a permit for the last 2 Sno-blinds. (if someone can clarify that would be great) If this is true we have our answer!
WHOA! Before you involve the Mudchuggers on a rant like this, please check your facts first. We pay every year to have this event, and just because GLFWDA is not an affiliate anymore, does not give them the right to tarnish a respectable club. Check your facts please, because we put out $1000's of dollars to hold this event and get the PROPER PERMITS AND INSURANCE to do so. I don't know you personally, but if anyone knew this info that's outside the club on the way this event is held, I would have to assume you would know. For more info: any money that comes in from this event is donated to the food kitchen in West Branch, United (which if you get the quarterly, you'll see that Mudchuggers donated a check for $1000), Tread Lightly, Blue Ribbon and money towards the assoc for HAM radio's ... the list goes on. If you need more info, ask before you post something negative.

About the Pig Gig: Just like G-man says, "It's operated on private property." I have to assume that he's willing to accept responsibility if something happens on his property. When it comes to trail rides, the participants going out assume responsibility for themselves. Like any other trail ride. I've been there once and enjoyed it. We didn't go this year, but we would be willing to go again. Kudos to Grandman for letting people with the same interest enjoy his property!

Last edited by silverxj; December 6th, 2006 at 09:36 AM.
silverxj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 6th, 2006, 09:35 AM   #53
CreativeFab
used to be Ironman
 
CreativeFab's Avatar
 
Join Date: 12-01-05
Location: midland
Posts: 3,215
iTrader: (35)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by silverxj View Post
WHOA! Before you involve the Mudchuggers on a rant like this, please check your facts first. We pay every year to have this event, and just because GLFWDA is not an affiliate anymore, does not give them the right to tarnish a respectable club. Check your facts please, because we put out $1000's of dollars to hold this event and get the PROPER PERMITS AND INSURANCE to do so. I don't know you personally, but if anyone knew this info that's outside the club on the way this event is held, I would have to assume you would know. For more info: any money that comes in from this event is donated to the food kitchen in West Branch, United (which if you get the quarterly, you'll see that Mudchuggers donated a check for $1000), Tread Lightly, Blue Ribbon and money towards the assoc for HAM radio's ... the list goes on. If you need more info, ask before you post something negative.

About the Pig Gig: Just like G-man says, "It's operated on private property." I have to assume that he's willing to accept responsibility if something happens on his property. When it comes to trail rides, the participants going out assume responsibility for themselves. Like any other trail ride.
Ryan,

Reread my post, I simply asked a question. No one is questioning what the mudchuggers do with the money coming from their event. Clarification on pulling a permit was all I was looking for! There was no underlying issues that I was trying to get at. I used to be a trail leader for Snoblind I know how it works.

Sincerley,

Pat Kinne
CreativeFab is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 6th, 2006, 09:40 AM   #54
roll-bar Bob
Senior Member
 
roll-bar Bob's Avatar
 
Join Date: 01-20-06
Location: M CITY
Posts: 2,794
iTrader: (3)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

THIS IS NOT A GROUP OF 20 OR MORE IT IS 30 RIGS ON A TRAIL STUCK BEHIND ONE SLOW ONE


WHO PULLS A PERMIT FOR 696 EVERY DAY :tonka: :tonka: :tonka: :tonka: :tonka: :tonka:

THAT MUST BE AN EVENT ON STATE LAND
roll-bar Bob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 6th, 2006, 10:23 AM   #55
silverxj
Recovering XJ owner
 
silverxj's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Michigan
Posts: 5,620
iTrader: (64)
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironman View Post
Ryan,

Reread my post, I simply asked a question. No one is questioning what the mudchuggers do with the money coming from their event. Clarification on pulling a permit was all I was looking for! There was no underlying issues that I was trying to get at. I used to be a trail leader for Snoblind I know how it works.

Sincerley,

Pat Kinne

I apologize if that came over offensive, just to clarify, the past two years we have had a permit issued. Since the head of DNR has changed up there it has become more difficult and the fees have increased. Again I apologize if I came across the wrong way.

As you know, we are also responsible, as Trail Guides, to inform participants that some of the trails we are on are NOT always open through out the year, and we do get permission to be there.
silverxj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 6th, 2006, 10:47 AM   #56
CreativeFab
used to be Ironman
 
CreativeFab's Avatar
 
Join Date: 12-01-05
Location: midland
Posts: 3,215
iTrader: (35)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by silverxj View Post
I apologize if that came over offensive, just to clarify, the past two years we have had a permit issued. Since the head of DNR has changed up there it has become more difficult and the fees have increased. Again I apologize if I came across the wrong way.

As you know, we are also responsible, as Trail Guides, to inform participants that some of the trails we are on are NOT always open through out the year, and we do get permission to be there.

We will blame the DNR (Damn Near Russia) for the rumor getting started. Hope all, goes well with Snoblind this year and thank the club for the contributions to the United coffers! It is very much appreciated
CreativeFab is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 6th, 2006, 11:33 AM   #57
silverxj
Recovering XJ owner
 
silverxj's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Michigan
Posts: 5,620
iTrader: (64)
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Default

Again, I apologize for taking the offensive end so quickly. Hopefully we can get out on the trail together sometime!

Since the head of DNR changed up there, it seems they have a communiction problem. The club sends out maps of the area that we run to get them approved in order to get a permit. Also, the fees have gone up!:miff:
This year they have marked out quite a bit compared to prior years as well.
silverxj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 6th, 2006, 12:22 PM   #58
USMC 0369
Livin in Cal-tuckey
 
USMC 0369's Avatar
 
Join Date: 08-27-06
Location: Twentynine Palms, CA
Posts: 852
iTrader: (0)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Wow... I thought we had problems! :dunie: :dunie: :dunie:
USMC 0369 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 6th, 2006, 01:51 PM   #59
whiterhino
I'm not old, honest...
 
whiterhino's Avatar
 
Join Date: 03-07-06
Location: Davisburg MI
Posts: 22,313
iTrader: (22)
Mentioned: 27 Post(s)
Default

I made some progress on this last year. I wrote my congressman, John Stakoe asking why we needed a permit and insurance.

My letter to him dated feb/05Dear Representative Stakoe,

I am a member of Great Lakes Four Wheel Drive Association (GLFWDA) who resides in your district. We are a group of approximately 300 members spread around the entire state of Michigan. Our organization was founded as a non-profit association over 30 years ago as a way to bring full size four wheel drive enthusiasts together. You can find detailed information about us at glfwda.org

As our times have changed, so has our state. Continual land closures have forced many of our members to travel out of state for their off highway recreation. While there are many miles of trails dedicated to motorcycles, quads and snowmobiles, there are less areas for full size vehicles to use and more being closed.

Currently, the “REGULATION OF LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES” dictates that we must have an event permit for any organized trail ride with 20 or more people involved. This means that each time a group of people get together to enjoy the out doors, [technically] an event permit must be applied for. Each permit requires a performance bond, which costs $500 - $800 and must be accompanied by a special insurance policy. Increased insurance costs have made it nearly impossible to obtain specialized insurance. The cost of insurance to (GLFWDA) for 2005 is $6,440.

We find that no other group of enthusiasts are required to have these permits other than for competitions. Let me emphasize that although we have had competitions in the past, I am not talking about competition, but for casual gatherings that are a day on the trail and may include a banquet at a local VFW hall. Typically, our events will have 40 – 50 vehicles that travel in groups of 10 - 12. We do not allow any alcohol at our events and follow the national “Tread Lightly” philosophy. The ironic part is that as full size, street legal vehicles, we are already insured.

The regulations do allow the DNR to waive the permit if “the department determines that the event will not require department oversight, and the event will have a minimal impact on the resource and on the use of the lands by others”.
To our knowledge, the DNR has never waived a permit for full size users.
We feel that since we have “tried to do the right thing”, we have brought more attention to ourselves and therefore, are always under a high level of scrutiny. We are sure that trail rides with more than 20 people happen, but since they never asked for a permit, and are not an “official” organization, it goes unnoticed. But, we are always told that WE need a permit.

We have members who attend every ORV advisory board meeting and we participate in the DNR trail maintenance program. We have continually asked for more “challenge areas” and have also applied for the installation of rocks at the St Helen Motorsport Area since rock crawling is the largest single growth area in off highway use. The rock project has been on hold for 2 years even though we are aware that the funding is available.

In the event that things continue on the same course, more and more of our members will spend their discretionary time and money out of state. Our membership has been larger but many clubs have already dropped out and just decided to travel out of state. I realize that 300 members seem like a small amount of people, but we would grow again if Michigan could return to an attractive destination.

Can you help us?

Sincerely,
Jim Kitson
Springfield Township
Great Lakes Four Wheel Drive Association member#2665

John Stakoe contacted the Michigan attorney general's office asking about this. Following is the reply dated July/05
MIKE COX

ATTORNEY GENERAL
July 7,2005
Honorable John P. Stakoe State Representative The Capitol Lansing,MI 48913
Dear Representative Stakoe:
Attorney General Cox has asked me to respond to your letter regarding the requirement of the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) that persons or groups engaging in off-road vehicle (ORV) events on state land obtain an event permit and liability insurance for the event. On behalf of a constituent, your letter asks whether the DNR should forego the requirement of liability insurance and instead rely on governmental immunity or a release of liability as sufficient protection of the public interest. Your constituent suggests that, as a matter of law, requiring liability insurance imposes costs on participants without providing any additional protection for the State. Due to the subject matter of the request, I asked staff in the Environment, Natural Resources, and Agriculture Division to review your letter. The following represents their findings.
Initially, it should be observed that your constituent's question, while broadly legal in nature, also presents essentially a policy question. State agencies generally exercise their discretion when making policy choices and it is beyond the scope of this letter to address all the factors that might support those policy choices.
The DNR's requirement that persons obtain event permits and liability insurance stems from an administrative rule, 2001 MR 20, R 299.922(m), as amended by 2004 MR 24, which states:
Rule 22. On lands owned or under the control of the department, it is unlawful for a person or persons to do any of the following:
* * *
(m) To hold events including, but not limited to, races, endurance contests, tournaments, or trail rides, unless the events are conducted pursuant to a permit. The permit may include a charge to the sponsor or permittee for the use of the land. An event may require a performance bond to ensure permit

Honorable John P. Stakoe Page 2
compliance and may require public liability insurance. The department may waive the requirement for a permit for events where the number of participants is 20 or more individuals if the department determines that the event will not require department oversight, and the event will have a minimal impact on the resource and on the use of the lands by others. [Emphasis added.]
The March 11, 2005, letter from Rodney Stokes, DNR Legislative Liaison, attached to your request, notes that the insurance requirement and the amount of coverage are also based on advice from this office and guidelines from the Department of Management and Budget.
There are two fundamental factors that would support the choice to require permittees to maintain liability insurance. First, when the nature of an event includes activities on state land that could result in serious personal injury, such as events involving motor vehicles, the availability of insurance may be the only means for affording the participants and the public appropriate protection under the circumstances. As in the case of mandatory automobile insurance coverage, insurance provides a source for payment of expenses and damages if someone is injured as a result of the ORV event. The DNR indicates in its letter from Mr. Stokes that typical automobile insurance for ORVs does not include coverage to the million dollar limit called for by the DNR. Because motor vehicle-related injuries can be catastrophic, experience has instructed that a million dollar policy limit may be the minimum that could be considered appropriate; that is, a million dollars of coverage likely falls on the scale somewhere between the damages that might result from an accident involving minor injury and one involving catastrophic injury or death. With the insurance policy in place, a person injured during an ORV event has a source other than taxpayer money to recover the costs and damages that result from an accident.
The second factor that would support the choice to require insurance is that a standard liability policy protects not only injured persons and the permittee, but it protects the State as well. Although the State and its employees are protected by immunity from tort liability under many circumstances by statute, MCL 691.1407, the statutory bar has not served to eliminate suits against the State and its employees for injuries that occur on state land or during events that involve, even indirectly, government employees. In many of these cases, the State eventually prevails, but only after expending considerable state resources, such as the time and expense of Department of Attorney General lawyers and support staff, and other litigation costs including expert witness fees and time spent by employees of the state agency that has been sued. The liability policy shields the state fisc from these costs by requiring the policy holder and in turn the policy holder's insurer, to fund the defense of the case instead of state taxpayers. Moreover, if the governmental immunity defense does not result in dismissal of the action, the insurer - not the State's taxpayers - will be responsible for payment of damages up to the policy limit.
Therefore, even though the State and its employees are often immune from liability, the choice to require that ORV event permittees obtain a liability insurance policy is one that is designed to protect the state treasury from the financial burden that could result from an ORV

Honorable John P. Stakoe
Page 3
event despite the existence of governmental immunity and therefore confers a benefit on the State in addition to those otherwise available.
Your letter also inquires whether securing a waiver of liability from persons engaging in ORV events on state land would sufficiently protect state interests instead of requiring them to provide liability insurance. First, a waiver by an event participant' in favor of the State would not protect other participants or the public in the event of an accident. For example, if a bystander was injured by a vehicle involved in the event, the bystander's ability to recover against the driver would be limited to any policy or assets the driver may have; in other words, there would be no sure source out of which to assure recovery for a legitimate claim as there is when a liability policy is in effect. Second, the waiver signed by the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident would not prevent the injured bystander from suing the State or its agents and employees, and the State would incur the costs of defending that action, as well as any damages that might result if the State's immunity defense did not result in dismissal.
Lastly, experience has taught that persons who agree to waive liability may nevertheless seek to challenge the validity of the very agreements they entered into on a variety of grounds, even when the agreement is well drafted and ultimately upheld in a court action. The costs of defending against such challenges would not be incurred in the event an insurance policy were in place. Moreover, the courts have long held that a party may not contract to protect itself from liability for gross negligence. Lamp v Reynolds, 249 Mich App 591, 594; 645 NW2d 311 (2002). Thus, where allegations are made that injuries were caused by gross negligence, a waiver of liability purporting to limit liability would be ineffective. Therefore, there is ample support for an agency's conclusion that waivers of liability are not a viable alternative to a liability insurance policy.
If you have any questions, please give me a call.

(Sincerely,
Gary P. Gordon)


Chief Deputy Attorney General


Basically it says that even though a citizen can not sue the state, they don't want the hassle. In a nut shell, they demand it because they can.

Some of you are seem to think that this stuff has never been thought of. It has and unfortunately, it continues to be the same.

Hope this helps.
Jim
whiterhino is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 6th, 2006, 01:55 PM   #60
whiterhino
I'm not old, honest...
 
whiterhino's Avatar
 
Join Date: 03-07-06
Location: Davisburg MI
Posts: 22,313
iTrader: (22)
Mentioned: 27 Post(s)
Default

As a secondary note, GLFWDA hired an attorney to review the above documents and related laws. He told us we would be wasting our money to try to fight it.
whiterhino is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest > 4x4 Land Use > Rules, Regulations, Trail, and ORV Park Chat

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:04 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd. Runs best on HiVelocity Hosting.
Page generated in 0.43248 seconds with 80 queries