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







Search
Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old February 28th, 2007, 06:32 PM   #1
Yetti
Buy a Fiat! Save the UAW!
 
Yetti's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: 20 minutes south of Hell...
Posts: 14,383
iTrader: (10)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default The latest letter about the new ORV bill from Dick Ranney

Another important message...
This came today, feb. 28th. Please read.

Inside michigan house bill 4323 february 27, 2007 michigan motorized recreation council for immediate release: the purpose of the bill is to resolve the questions surrounding the legality of a county, township or municipality to open its roadways for orv use in northern michigan. Considerable within the bill is redundant of current michigan law, if reading, observe changes in current law in bold print. The following is our understanding from reading and visiting with representative sheltrown’s office. Obviously, everything you read is subject to amendments and we must continuously monitor the bill until passage or defeat. Here is how the bill affects various stakeholders; counties, townships & municipalities a county board of commissioners will have the ability to adopt an ordinance permitting the operation of orv’s on their roadways and may extend the authority to local municipalities. Bill permits this to be done in counties north of townline 12. Southernmost tier of counties would include mason, lake, osceola, clare, gladwin & arenac at their southern borders. Maximum speed limit is 25 mph unless a lower speed limit is posted. Orv’s are to be operated single file, with the flow of traffic on the extreme right side of the road or right-of-way. Hours of operation are ½ hour before sunrise and ½ hour after sunset. Age of operator is 18, unless they have a valid michigan operators license, or under the direct visual supervision of parent/guardian, and have a valid orv safety certificate. Beginning january 1, 2010, all orv operating on public roadways, shall have lighted headlight and taillight. A civil infraction of $500, plus any court ordered remediation for damages may be adopted by a county. Enforcement the treasurer of the local unit of government shall deposit fines collected for violation of an ordinance in a fund designated, “orv fund”. The local unit of government shall appropriate 50% for orv enforcement and training. (officer’s) road commissions under the “orv fund”, 50% of all fines collected in violation of an ordinance, shall be distributed to the county road commission for the purpose of orv signage and maintenance of streets and roadways. Under the bill, a road commission will have the right to close a street or road right-of-way to orv use to protect the environment or poses a threat to public safety. A road commission may not close more than 30% of the linear miles of roadway within the county. A road commission or municipality does not have a duty to maintain a road under its jurisdiction for the safe and convenient operation of orv’s under an ordinance provided by this bill. Remaining, language on prima facia negligent immunity from tort liability for a county board of commissioners, county road commission and local municipalities unless gross negligence can be proven. Users no increase of fee’s. Operating headlight and taillight by 2010 to operate on roadway or right-of-way. Speed no greater than 25 mph unless posted lesser. Ride to the far right of road or right-of-way or area designated within ordinance. Emphasis within bill on adult visual supervision, no different than existing law. “drive by” sound test included, different than exhaust sound emission test, seldom if ever used. Further language on trespass, must have written owner or lessee permission. Liable for damage to private property, including growing crops and other living creatures, including domesticated animals. Monies from fines no longer go into “general fund”. House bill 4323 is a giant step forward in managing the growth of orv activity in michigan in the interest of safety, convenience, recreational opportunity and economic growth. House bill 4323 is the first orv legislation in michigan since 1995, covers primarily one area that needs legislative adjustment to meet the needs of michigan and the orv user’s within our state. (346,000 registered with secretary of state 1-31-07) it is seldom that a new piece of legislation is 100% agreeable to everyone, however, hb 4323 offers a fair and reasonable compromise that has far more positives than negatives. Therefore, the leadership of michigan motorized recreation council join many others in supporting house bill 4323. Michigan motorized recreation council public releases are the results of roundtable discussions by the leaders of the major orv organizations within michigan, representing over 20,000 members.
__________________
Yetti
Yetti is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 3rd, 2007, 08:39 AM   #2
Trail_Fanatic
Member since 1994
 
Trail_Fanatic's Avatar
 
Join Date: 03-25-06
Location: Muskegon and Oceana Counties
Posts: 3,175
iTrader: (0)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Time to show support by email (again for some of you).
Email each House Natural Resources Committee Representative by Monday, March 5th.

We're down to the wire and need a last minute 'push' to make sure this gets through Committee.
Your Email only has to be one sentence:

Please support HB4323.

If you want to say anything more, that's great.
Trail_Fanatic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 4th, 2007, 07:13 PM   #3
OneManBanned
Member
 
Join Date: 02-10-07
Location: Kzoo
Posts: 84
iTrader: (0)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

"...50% of all fines collected in violation of an ordinance, shall be distributed to the county road commission for the purpose of orv signage and maintenance...


...A road commission or municipality does not have a duty to maintain a road under its jurisdiction for the safe and convenient operation of orv’s....

"...a road commission will have the right to close a street or road right-of-way to orv use to protect the environment...

"...Users no increase of fee’s..."

"wow"....

Last edited by OneManBanned; March 4th, 2007 at 07:18 PM.
OneManBanned is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 6th, 2007, 09:09 PM   #4
Trail_Fanatic
Member since 1994
 
Trail_Fanatic's Avatar
 
Join Date: 03-25-06
Location: Muskegon and Oceana Counties
Posts: 3,175
iTrader: (0)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Never said it was perfect, merely an improvement over what currently exists. I think it would be a HUGE improvement and, as such, deserves our support.

Don't get me wrong. I have issues with it too. I'd like to see the Township 12 line reset to the Rifle Line. The purpose of the Bill is to allow non-street licensed orv access from the trail system to services. Muskegon, Oceana, and Newago counties are all below the Township 12 line but have State trails in them.

B U T

I still whole heartedly support the Bill.
Trail_Fanatic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 13th, 2007, 07:24 PM   #5
Trail_Fanatic
Member since 1994
 
Trail_Fanatic's Avatar
 
Join Date: 03-25-06
Location: Muskegon and Oceana Counties
Posts: 3,175
iTrader: (0)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default




HB 4323, which would regulate ORVs on county roads in northern Michigan was reported to the full House of Representatives by the House Tourism, Outdoor Recreation, and Natural Resources Committee this morning on a vote of 11-0. The committee exercised its option to recommend that the full House adopt the bill.

You may wish to contact your state representative ASAP and ask that they support the bill on the House floor.

-Joel Sheltrown
Trail_Fanatic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 13th, 2007, 07:33 PM   #6
Yetti
Buy a Fiat! Save the UAW!
 
Yetti's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: 20 minutes south of Hell...
Posts: 14,383
iTrader: (10)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

Thanks for the update TF. thats great news.
__________________
Yetti
Yetti is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 13th, 2007, 07:38 PM   #7
Trail_Fanatic
Member since 1994
 
Trail_Fanatic's Avatar
 
Join Date: 03-25-06
Location: Muskegon and Oceana Counties
Posts: 3,175
iTrader: (0)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

We have to keep those emails, letters, and phone calls going though!
Trail_Fanatic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 14th, 2007, 01:59 AM   #8
OneManBanned
Member
 
Join Date: 02-10-07
Location: Kzoo
Posts: 84
iTrader: (0)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OneManBanned View Post
"...50% of all fines collected in violation of an ordinance, shall be distributed to the county road commission for the purpose of orv signage and maintenance...


...A road commission or municipality does not have a duty to maintain a road under its jurisdiction for the safe and convenient operation of orv’s....

"...a road commission will have the right to close a street or road right-of-way to orv use to protect the environment...

"...Users no increase of fee’s..."

"wow"....

It's an unfunded mandate plain and simple folks.

The next thing we'll see is every greenie in the state snapping pictures on the side of the road for evidence of "protecting the environment" spelled out very clearly in the bill itself; which they will then take to their local road commissioner with a demand that they close same down as directed, again, by law.

Hate to make you guys appear stupid....but aren't you once again allowing the minority cycle community to pen legislation for the majority orv community that is just plain ripe for embarrasment ???
So the sides of the road are shut back down in the future for a lack of proper planning and the intitial funds needed to properly construct and sustainably maintain them....are any of you dumb enough to think that this will be any skin off of the full-size or cycle community's noses?

Uhhhhh, 'guys'.....ever hear of a simply responsibe concept.....called "pay-to-play"???

Soooo.... no fee hike to cover the HUGE added cost here was "O.K." because both the full-size and cyclists sure as heck weren't going to to pay for what they weren't going to use anyways....while the majority atvers can't even sum up the courage to simply stand up like a man and demand that these massive projects be properly funded??? (for even the sake of exhibiting how this community takes care of our resources....and especially when they're in plain view on the side of the damn road?).

Looks like the cyclists finally got that "long term study" in atv trail damage that they were looking for years ago...as this bill as written is truly a train wreck waiting to happen.(and one that will have zero effect on its authors when the pressure is put on these road commissions to close certain portions of these access routes down).

"No fee increase to users..."

Yeah, let every light 4-wheeler in the state run the sides of these roads....yet damn well force the locals to foot the bill for MAINTAINING all this massive mileage in an almost broke 4 season state....all the while encouraging the localities to fund said costly program through $500 fines that discourage folks from ever coming back to spend money in their community to begin with.

Typical metro/suburban Detroit liberal mentality....we'll screw it up....and force you (outstate Michigan) to pay for it.

Southeastern local hero "Jenny" is bound to sign this one over the above principle alone....

Last edited by OneManBanned; March 14th, 2007 at 06:36 AM.
OneManBanned is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 14th, 2007, 07:24 AM   #9
OneManBanned
Member
 
Join Date: 02-10-07
Location: Kzoo
Posts: 84
iTrader: (0)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

It's also sadly ironic that the fire program can stamp their feet and cry about supporting the orv program while demanding 9and simply taking) funding from us (page 1 under orv budget report here: http://www.michigan.gov/documents/dn...s_188116_7.pdf )...yet when the road commissioners and these 'hick' communities 'dare' to ask the exact same thing and need funding from us NOW to keep a program in initial development from becomming an embarassment.....our cycle "leaders" make certain that NONE of us by gosh PAY for cramming this mileage down these locality's throats without due and continuing guaranteed compensation.

What's next?

The southeast Michigan big city slicker riding area that "won't cost us anything"???

Last edited by OneManBanned; March 14th, 2007 at 07:27 AM.
OneManBanned is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 14th, 2007, 05:48 PM   #10
Yetti
Buy a Fiat! Save the UAW!
 
Yetti's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: 20 minutes south of Hell...
Posts: 14,383
iTrader: (10)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
NEW BUSINESS
Quote:


Annual Election of Officers – Mr. Moll opened nominations for Chairperson. Mr. Dinsmore

nominated Dick Ranney with his acceptance,

second by Sheriff Strait. Mr. Moll called for
nominations three more times. No more nominations received.


well John you missed your chance again.

__________________
Yetti
Yetti is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 14th, 2007, 06:21 PM   #11
OneManBanned
Member
 
Join Date: 02-10-07
Location: Kzoo
Posts: 84
iTrader: (0)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yetti View Post
[B][FONT=Arial][SIZE=3]



well John you missed your chance again.

The citizens of this state have missed THEIR chance to fill these two slots or even have their views solicited for over two years now. The above (as you know) is a formality within the board structure that props up both the chairman's expired position and his sidekick's without explanation for yet another year.

Not to get off-topic....but has anybody EVER witnessed any member of the balance of this board (members supposedly representing the orv community)...actually "make the meeting minutes" with something profound enough to be mentioned even ONCE in that quarterly document? (this 'highly condensed' version of all issues orv-related being the one and only official news source that the puiblic has ever been allowed to view?).

I've had the displeasure of reading them all for 8 years now and am still waiting for somebody (save the sherrif) to stand up and speak representing the orv community...without the chairman's lips moving at the same time.
If somebody could please review the meeting minutes since these guys first showed up and point out an instance where these 'leaders' people who had never attended a meeting previously...said more than simply making or seconding a motion.... I'd appreciate it.

Last edited by OneManBanned; March 14th, 2007 at 09:14 PM.
OneManBanned is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 14th, 2007, 08:57 PM   #12
Trail_Fanatic
Member since 1994
 
Trail_Fanatic's Avatar
 
Join Date: 03-25-06
Location: Muskegon and Oceana Counties
Posts: 3,175
iTrader: (0)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

So how about an extra 5 bucks per sticker?

200,000 stickers x 5 bucks = 1,000,000 per year.
300,000 stickers x 5 bucks = 1,500,000 per year

Would that fund it?
Would users (including 4x4) support it?
Trail_Fanatic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 14th, 2007, 09:40 PM   #13
OneManBanned
Member
 
Join Date: 02-10-07
Location: Kzoo
Posts: 84
iTrader: (0)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trail_Fanatic View Post
So how about an extra 5 bucks per sticker?

200,000 stickers x 5 bucks = 1,000,000 per year.
300,000 stickers x 5 bucks = 1,500,000 per year

Would that fund it?
Would users (including 4x4) support it?
How can you expect the public to speculate on what this amount would be....if the "all powerful" MMRC funding recommendations delivered to the DNR on January 17th on this very topic...aren't public knowledge to begin with?

It's like you are suddenly acting as if all the above was 'never discussed previously' in these closed door meetings ("what if the 4x4ers don't support it...")...and the public simply looks back at both you and the MMRC as if to say...."what in the heck do you guys discuss in these meetings anyways???"

Great idea...just please tell me that this current roadside funding 'brainstorm' wasn't kicked around a long time ago at these anonymous gatherings and that somebody (even a full-sizer) had the stones to stand up for or against it when that particular discussion ensued.

I'm seriously thinking that we all need to take a look at those MMRC recommendations submitted to the DNR in January if we're on our second attempt to form a funding committe (or 'taskforce' as they called it last May) and that there are now inexplicable funding priority 'revelations' suspicously coming out at the zero hour with little practical effect considering the suddenly fast-moving timetables.

Last edited by OneManBanned; March 15th, 2007 at 07:17 AM.
OneManBanned is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 15th, 2007, 06:54 AM   #14
OneManBanned
Member
 
Join Date: 02-10-07
Location: Kzoo
Posts: 84
iTrader: (0)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

BTW, with everybody here evidently so 'proud' of the manner in which this MMRC is operating out back there in the shadows....how about somebody posting (quote/unquote) "our" suggestions regarding the funding of this mess contained in the document sent to the DNR way back on January 17th as outlined in the last orv advisory board meeting minuters? (in its entirety).

For that matter, how about all of the correspondence these anonymous and secretive 'representatives' have put forth in our name since their very inception years ago?

When I hear of funding suggestions put forth by a MMRC board member regarding legislation already being voted on and orv advisory board funding sub-committees being formed this late in the game and just as fee increases are about to be announced....I'm sorry, but the orv community has a right to know just what in the heck that these people have been proposing that the state do all along with our monies and just when they got around to making each individual issue a priority in their formal and informal 'representative' presentations to that same body.

Post this almost two-month old document up here NOW; or simply continue this council's multi-year streak of never releasing a damn thing to the general public for the consumption or commentary needed to approach AT THE VERY LEAST OUR ADVISORY BOARD with informed and intelligent questions as to what the heck is/has been going on in regards to our issues.

Again, a lot of good any two month old info will do us now with decisions already or about to be made (see the whole Travel management Plan debacle; where this secretive council wasn't heard from as one voice EVEN ONCE in the single most important process that this community has ever faced...yet now is the time to force those speaking for us into finally releasing ALL of these documents in their entirety.

Last edited by OneManBanned; March 15th, 2007 at 07:09 AM.
OneManBanned is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 15th, 2007, 07:55 AM   #15
whiterhino
I'm not old, honest...
 
whiterhino's Avatar
 
Join Date: 03-07-06
Location: Davisburg MI
Posts: 20,724
iTrader: (21)
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Default

Why do you have such an issue with the MMRC? If a group get together to discuss things, why is it such a big deal. They do not control anything.
whiterhino is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 15th, 2007, 01:11 PM   #16
CreativeFab
used to be Ironman
 
CreativeFab's Avatar
 
Join Date: 12-01-05
Location: midland
Posts: 3,206
iTrader: (35)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by whiterhino View Post
Why do you have such an issue with the MMRC? If a group get together to discuss things, why is it such a big deal. They do not control anything.
What do you mean we dont control anything? Just yesterday we ------wait I wasnt supposed to say anything.
CreativeFab is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 15th, 2007, 03:37 PM   #17
OneManBanned
Member
 
Join Date: 02-10-07
Location: Kzoo
Posts: 84
iTrader: (0)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironman View Post
What do you mean we dont control anything? Just yesterday we ------wait I wasnt supposed to say anything.
We are simply asking you (or Trail Fanatic) to post a copy of the document recently sent to our Department of Natural Resources (or any other government agency) representing this orv community's positions on these very important and timely matters.

If you choose to make light of this simple request by indeed further illustrating exactly how this council has denied all previous requests for basic information regarding these issues in which both they and obviously you represent us....that is certainly your choice.
OneManBanned is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 15th, 2007, 04:03 PM   #18
Yetti
Buy a Fiat! Save the UAW!
 
Yetti's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: 20 minutes south of Hell...
Posts: 14,383
iTrader: (10)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

I never see funding as an issue, look at how much folks pay to use the Mounds. its a non issue. if the land is there people will pay to use it. IF the state is running any kind of park or if its privatly run there will be a fee, and if it saves someone $50 in fuel to drive they will pay it. kinda like a dirt Disneyland.
__________________
Yetti
Yetti is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 15th, 2007, 08:51 PM   #19
OneManBanned
Member
 
Join Date: 02-10-07
Location: Kzoo
Posts: 84
iTrader: (0)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

We've went beyond 'funding' here and gotten into simple disclosure by Ironman and everybody else who sits on that council; not to mentiong DNR personnel who are supposedly in posession of this extremely inportant document regarding our collective views on these matters .

If these guys won't give up this combined opinion of the orv community after submitting same to the DNR almost two months ago...so be it.

But let's not change the subject here and allow any one of them to now simply sit back and not admit that this is indeed the case.(not surprisingly, the exact same thing happened not very long ago when the just as critically important orv update plan was announced and community opinions were solicited. I had to lay out I don't know how much money on an FOIA after these same people refused to supply the same basic (what should be) public information...which is no less ridiculous today then it was when they 'balked' at proudly displaying our views at that time also.

There is absolutely no reason that this crap should be argued and it's pretty sad to witness so many sit on the sidelines with no opinion one way or the other when simple 'stand up like a man' issues come to the forefront.

Last edited by OneManBanned; March 16th, 2007 at 06:29 AM.
OneManBanned is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 16th, 2007, 07:20 AM   #20
Trail_Fanatic
Member since 1994
 
Trail_Fanatic's Avatar
 
Join Date: 03-25-06
Location: Muskegon and Oceana Counties
Posts: 3,175
iTrader: (0)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

What, specifically, are you looking for?

I have a copy of our collective Draft Forest Plan comments if you'd like a copy.

That was the last document we submitted 'collectively'.

I can post it, but it's like 6 or 8 pages in length.
Trail_Fanatic 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

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 08:20 AM.


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.
Copyright ©2005 - 2012 Cracker Enterprises - Powered by Linux
vB Ad Management by =RedTyger=
Page generated in 0.31808 seconds with 50 queries