Can I drive my full size rig down a quad trail in michigan if I don't hit any trees? - Page 2 - 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 September 18th, 2007, 11:56 AM   #21
steveo
In the band!
 
Join Date: 03-30-07
Location: montana/wyoming
Posts: 20,293
iTrader: (6)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kb8ymf View Post
Did you fit down it?, If so, the DNR Officer was out of line. Again, just another example of how screwed up the wording on the current ORV law is for users to interpet. The DNR however think it's great, lots of leway in interpetation.
jim-kb8ymf
thanks for this info. the trail in question now has a little picture of an atv on a sign by the entrance. just to clarify, even if a trail is marked for atv use only, i can go down it with my jeep as long as i fit?
steveo is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old September 18th, 2007, 12:08 PM   #22
kb8ymf
Not as old as Whiterhino
 
kb8ymf's Avatar
 
Join Date: 06-01-06
Location: Dryden,Mi.
Posts: 1,112
iTrader: (5)
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by steveo View Post
thanks for this info. the trail in question now has a little picture of an atv on a sign by the entrance. just to clarify, even if a trail is marked for atv use only, i can go down it with my jeep as long as i fit?
It the appearance of the trail indicates full size vehicle traffic, Yes. As I indicated a few post's up, the actual marking on the ground doesn't specifically prohibit a particular size vehicle. Again look at the MCCCT. Some of it is on wide forest road, some of it is on narrow forest road, and some in between, which is where the 'grey' line is at.
jim-kb8ymf
kb8ymf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 18th, 2007, 12:18 PM   #23
Troll53
Lurker under the bridge
 
Troll53's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-17-06
Location: Lapeer, Michigan
Posts: 277
iTrader: (2)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Send a message via MSN to Troll53
Default

Quote:
screwed up the wording on the current ORV law is for users to interpet
I see this as the biggest problem. Too much room for interpritation and way to much legal mumbo jumbo for the average enthusiast.
Troll53 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 18th, 2007, 12:25 PM   #24
steveo
In the band!
 
Join Date: 03-30-07
Location: montana/wyoming
Posts: 20,293
iTrader: (6)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

the DNR is ticket happy. state and county/city cops for the most part are reasonable where i come from, but the DNR just throws the book as hard as they can. If you can argue a DNR officer out of writing you a ticket, call OJ and offer your services, he needs em.
steveo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 18th, 2007, 12:28 PM   #25
clarkstoncracker
lol
 
clarkstoncracker's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-03-05
Location: OC - MI
Posts: 42,732
iTrader: (40)
Mentioned: 146 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to clarkstoncracker
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by steveo View Post
ever consider getting your colon irrigated? its a pretty well known fact that quad trails are for QUADS. ask a dumbass question, get a sarcastic answer.
I bet you feel pretty stupid after making that comment.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kb8ymf View Post
If the trail is conspicously narrow such that it appears to be designed for a Quad AND you are wider than 50" you 'could' get a ticket. Once again it is subject to 'some' interpetation from the DNR Officer.
The problem come in how the trail was developed. Many <50" trails are really 2 tracks in the woods that had the entrance relocated to go through two trees 51" wide. Once you pass through the strainer, the trail opened up to a old logging road. Wide enough for a full size rig. USFS is notorious for this tactic.
There are also forest roads marked with 'ORV Trail' triangles. If it's got two tracks and obvioulsy shows signs of travel, it's legal to be there. The ORV Trail sign in itself does NOT regulate what size vehicle is allowed on the trial.
Case in point, Look at Drummond. Those roads were marked for ORV Trail because they wanted to allow unlicensed Quads and M/C on the trail. Street legal vehicles were already allowed there. However, due to a total lack of this understanding, the Quad and M/C community believed they were the only ones allowed on that trail. There is some discussion to revise this trail system to alleviate this mis-understanding.
The other rub comes with the fact I do not see in the law where it is illegal for dull size rigs to be on ,50" trails. The law only say's these are the two sizes for vehicles in the woods. It says designed for vehicles <50", NOT illegal for those over 50" to be on them.
The 50" width is a nationwide width. Which is why the Plaris Razor has become popular. 50" wide on the button and sits' two abreast. Much like the old Honda Odysey except update with new technology.

95Geo answered the slippery road condition question. In fact GLFWDA has a letter from the DNR that spells out that situation exactly. We'll get that posted in the very near future.

Relative to the definition of 'conventional'? This is a situation where the law has failed to keep pace with technology. The DNR refuses to remove the 2WD clause from the current law because it was put there to stop the cross country travel that they (DNR) say the Quads and M/C were doing after the original P.A. 319 was passed in the late 70's. It took till 1991 for them to 'figure out a method' to get them back on the forest road. That revision however went un-noticed when the law was revised.
Every time we try to revise it, we get stymied by the DNR. The Legislature always ask's the DNR for their opinion on revision to the ORV law. If the DNR doesn't want it changed, it won't get changed unless we get substantual momentum and leverage from the Legislature.

'Cliff notes for CC' If you fit reasonabally legitimately, your OK. Unless the DNR officer is having a bad day!
Jim-kb8ymf
So it is basically legal, as long as you can fit.


Quote:
Originally Posted by steveo View Post
was warned years ago when i wandered onto an atv trail that wasn't clearly marked out by our Bitley deer camp. i was driving my truck at the time, and a neat trail crossed the seasonal road i was on, so i went down it. I was much younger at the time, so he just warned me to stay off of roads i wasnt sure of.
This is how bad information starts. A DNR officer makes a mistake, abuses power, then it becomes "the law". It takes people to stand up and fight for whats legal.
__________________
clarkstoncracker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 18th, 2007, 12:32 PM   #26
steveo
In the band!
 
Join Date: 03-30-07
Location: montana/wyoming
Posts: 20,293
iTrader: (6)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by clarkstoncracker View Post
I bet you feel pretty stupid after making that comment.
yes, yes i do. I thought you were being sarcastic in the original post. if you want, we can take a field trip and both get a colonic?

Quote:
Originally Posted by clarkstoncracker View Post
This is how bad information starts. A DNR officer makes a mistake, abuses power, then it becomes "the law". It takes people to stand up and fight for whats legal.
the worst part about that is that since its a person with public authority paid to uphold law, you just assume they know something about it.
steveo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 18th, 2007, 12:34 PM   #27
clarkstoncracker
lol
 
clarkstoncracker's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-03-05
Location: OC - MI
Posts: 42,732
iTrader: (40)
Mentioned: 146 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to clarkstoncracker
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by steveo View Post

the worst part about that is that since its a person with public authority paid to uphold law, you just assume they know something about it.
Not only that, but the DNR officers may just be as confused as the "consumers" who use the trails.
__________________
clarkstoncracker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 18th, 2007, 12:38 PM   #28
steveo
In the band!
 
Join Date: 03-30-07
Location: montana/wyoming
Posts: 20,293
iTrader: (6)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by clarkstoncracker View Post
Not only that, but the DNR officers may just be as confused as the "consumers" who use the trails.
add that to the fact that once a ticket is issued, its nearly impossible to fight it without paying a huge lawyer fee, most people just take the shit they hand out. I am not anti government, and i appreciate the job the DNR does to help conserve our wildlife and trails, but there are times i start eyeing my guerrilla warfare manual when the subject is brought up.
steveo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 18th, 2007, 02:39 PM   #29
kb8ymf
Not as old as Whiterhino
 
kb8ymf's Avatar
 
Join Date: 06-01-06
Location: Dryden,Mi.
Posts: 1,112
iTrader: (5)
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by steveo View Post
add that to the fact that once a ticket is issued, its nearly impossible to fight it without paying a huge lawyer fee, most people just take the shit they hand out.
It's a Misdemeanor NOT a Civil Infraction. So a Lawyer is required. That's why most every fine is just paid and we continue to have the DNR running roughshod over the general law abiding public. Just like Drumond Island. The ticket was issued illegally. Instead of taking it to the courts, those involved, through the negeotiation with the DNR, got the ticket dismissed. So, no ruling by a Judge hence no standing to refer back to. Therefore, the stairsteps are closed permanently.
Same with a club that got tickets for being is a certain gravel pit. The area had legitimate trails, some of which were MCCCT as recent as 3 years ago. From what I was told they paid everyone's fine and the DNR continues to write tickets for people being in that area regardless of the season. The only one in recent memory to follow through was G-Man. He took it to court and won.
There was a revison to the to the level of infraction to be brought down to a C.I. but I think that is either held up in the 'ORV on the shoulders of the highway' Legislation or it might not have made it to the final wording. I know it was proposed for a change.
jim-kb8ymf

Last edited by kb8ymf; September 18th, 2007 at 04:58 PM.
kb8ymf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 18th, 2007, 03:35 PM   #30
bj house
Senior Member
 
bj house's Avatar
 
Join Date: 06-02-06
Location: Auburn Hills, MI
Posts: 5,289
iTrader: (4)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Where are the streakers and the hippies when you need em. We need some jobless people with nothing better to do then sit in court days on end and fight tooth and nail for us.

Thanks to those of you on here that already do that for us as much as you can afford to it is certainly appreciated.
bj house is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 18th, 2007, 06:38 PM   #31
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

The Huron-Manistee NF is fond of 're-designating' two tracks to 50" and less only trails. Unfortunately, most of the time, they have their poop in a group enough to officially disallow larger vehicle traffic during the 'paper-pushing' portion of the process.

They have had a 'Transportation Management Plan' in place since the late 80s. The map created by this Plan is going to be the basis for the HMNF's Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM) in spring '09. The only sure-fire way to be sure a trail is legal is to see if it's on the current transportation map.

Of course, in typical governmental fashion, there's a problem here too. The dilemma is that the map "Is not available to the public at this time" according to the NFS. This was their response when United Four Wheel Drive Association's Attorney, Carla Boucher, asked for a copy of it to aid in the formation of our Appeal of the HMNF's 2006 Forest Plan.

According to Carla, this creates a number of legal issues (Gray areas, if you like). If the map was available, it would be a no-brainer, it's either on the map or not. This will be the case after the new MVUM is published. The map isn't available though, so this leaves the Forest to revert back to the open unless posted closed to SOS vehicles law for Federal lands. The situation is further blurred toward our favor (for now) by the NF's continuous allowance of public use of the trails by not obstructing or otherwise indicating a closure.

Sorry, I thought you needed more smoke and mirrors to help you figure it all out! :tonka:

Other than that, KB8YMF has it on the nose.
Almost makes a person want to go out and get a ticket just to fight it, eh?
Wheeler's form of civil disobenience.

Last edited by Trail_Fanatic; September 18th, 2007 at 06:43 PM.
Trail_Fanatic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 18th, 2007, 07:11 PM   #32
steveo
In the band!
 
Join Date: 03-30-07
Location: montana/wyoming
Posts: 20,293
iTrader: (6)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kb8ymf View Post
It's a Misdemeanor NOT a Civil Infraction. So a Lawyer is required. That's why most every fine is just paid and we continue to have the DNR running roughshod over the general law abiding public. Just like Drumond Island. The ticket was issued illegally. Instead of taking it to the courts, those involved, through the negeotiation with the DNR, got the ticket dismissed. So, no ruling by a Judge hence no standing to refer back to. Therefore, the stairsteps are closed permanently.
Same with a club that got tickets for being is a certain gravel pit. The area had legitimate trails, some of which were MCCCT as recent as 3 years ago. From what I was told they paid everyone's fine and the DNR continues to write tickets for people being in that area regardless of the season. The only one in recent memory to follow through was G-Man. He took it to court and won.
There was a revison to the to the level of infraction to be brought down to a C.I. but I think that is either held up in the 'ORV on the shoulders of the highway' Legislation or it might not have made it to the final wording. I know it was proposed for a change.
jim-kb8ymf
I was taken to jail for fishing illegally by the dnr. 200 dollars to get bailed out(I had it in my wallet) They set me a date to talk to the judge, i went in ready to fight to the bitter end, thinking i was going to lose fishing and hunting privileges and get a huge fine. i laughed when they told me that they were going to fine me 180 dollars. it came out of my bail, and i got a check for 20 bucks back that i never cashed. they resend a new check every now and again. they just wanted my money, the bastards.
steveo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 18th, 2007, 08:15 PM   #33
clarkstoncracker
lol
 
clarkstoncracker's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-03-05
Location: OC - MI
Posts: 42,732
iTrader: (40)
Mentioned: 146 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to clarkstoncracker
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by steveo View Post
I was taken to jail for fishing illegally by the dnr. 200 dollars to get bailed out(I had it in my wallet) They set me a date to talk to the judge, i went in ready to fight to the bitter end, thinking i was going to lose fishing and hunting privileges and get a huge fine. i laughed when they told me that they were going to fine me 180 dollars. it came out of my bail, and i got a check for 20 bucks back that i never cashed. they resend a new check every now and again. they just wanted my money, the bastards.
We are talking about two totally different things. If you're doing something you know is illegal, then its not proper to fight it. If you're doing something that you believe is legal, then you have every right to fight it.
__________________
clarkstoncracker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 18th, 2007, 08:22 PM   #34
steveo
In the band!
 
Join Date: 03-30-07
Location: montana/wyoming
Posts: 20,293
iTrader: (6)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by clarkstoncracker View Post
We are talking about two totally different things. If you're doing something you know is illegal, then its not proper to fight it. If you're doing something that you believe is legal, then you have every right to fight it.
i was not illegally fishing. the DNR officer claimed i was. He claimed i was trying to snag salmon, when i was trying to catch the browns that follow the salmon up the river. I did have a weighted hook in my tackle box, but i use that for pulling snags out of the river when i get my lures caught on them.
steveo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 18th, 2007, 08:35 PM   #35
clarkstoncracker
lol
 
clarkstoncracker's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-03-05
Location: OC - MI
Posts: 42,732
iTrader: (40)
Mentioned: 146 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to clarkstoncracker
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by steveo View Post
i was not illegally fishing. the DNR officer claimed i was. He claimed i was trying to snag salmon, when i was trying to catch the browns that follow the salmon up the river. I did have a weighted hook in my tackle box, but i use that for pulling snags out of the river when i get my lures caught on them.
Fishing for the browns while the salmon are moving? Having weighted hooks to free snags? You're talking to a salmon veteran here I would have hauled you in.

I've been stopped a gabillion times on the river, and never once has an officer looked in my tackle box.. In fact, I believe that would be considered an illegal search. You sure theres nothing more to this story?
__________________
clarkstoncracker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 18th, 2007, 08:43 PM   #36
steveo
In the band!
 
Join Date: 03-30-07
Location: montana/wyoming
Posts: 20,293
iTrader: (6)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by clarkstoncracker View Post
Fishing for the browns while the salmon are moving? Having weighted hooks to free snags? You're talking to a salmon veteran here I would have hauled you in.

I've been stopped a gabillion times on the river, and never once has an officer looked in my tackle box.. In fact, I believe that would be considered an illegal search. You sure theres nothing more to this story?
a salmon veteran?? you dont even live on the right side of the state. i grew up 100 Ft the pentwater river, and there are huge salmon runs there. my dad has a 25 ft bayliner trophy we go out on 1-2 times a week for salmon. i am not saying i have never gill netted, snagged, shot, dynamited, or speared salmon, but this time i was innocent. besides, i only had my light spinning tackle with me, i use an old tuna stick with a 2 speed penn for snagging. P.S. my tacklebox was sitting there open when he walked up.
steveo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 18th, 2007, 09:20 PM   #37
clarkstoncracker
lol
 
clarkstoncracker's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-03-05
Location: OC - MI
Posts: 42,732
iTrader: (40)
Mentioned: 146 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to clarkstoncracker
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by steveo View Post
a salmon veteran?? you dont even live on the right side of the state. i grew up 100 Ft the pentwater river, and there are huge salmon runs there. my dad has a 25 ft bayliner trophy we go out on 1-2 times a week for salmon. i am not saying i have never gill netted, snagged, shot, dynamited, or speared salmon, but this time i was innocent. besides, i only had my light spinning tackle with me, i use an old tuna stick with a 2 speed penn for snagging. P.S. my tacklebox was sitting there open when he walked up.
I won't get into my fishing history, but heres what I do know. The penalty of using an invalid hook according to my handbook is a maximum fine of $500.00 (for first offense) and possible loss of fishing gear including tackle/poles/reals/nets/saved catch.

If a DNR officer rolled up on you, you were doing everything legal, and he glanced to notice some lures over an ounce in your tackle box, I'm willing to bet everything I have that there isn't a chance he would have said anything. Especially if you're tackle box is the size of your average seasoned angler.

Then, I'm willing to wager that there isn't a chance he glanced down into your tackle box, noticed a lure weighing more then an ounce, and arrested you, and brought you to jail. THIS DIDN'T HAPPEN. Not a chance in hell.

The only thing I'm getting at, is pointless made up stories do not actually help anything, but actually gives people a bad rap, when they never did anything. If your post would have been left at what you said, there would have been people thinking you were screwed over by some power hungry DNR officer.

You weren't screwed over by the man. If you were really tossed in jail for an illegal lure, you would have sued the hell out of the state for false imprisonment. And nobody in there right mind would EVER pay a $180.00 fine for the story you're stating. Not a chance.

If you need to get off by posting :chiefwoohaw: like this, please resort to the pub. Thanks.
__________________
clarkstoncracker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 18th, 2007, 09:28 PM   #38
steveo
In the band!
 
Join Date: 03-30-07
Location: montana/wyoming
Posts: 20,293
iTrader: (6)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by clarkstoncracker View Post
I won't get into my fishing history, but heres what I do know. The penalty of using an invalid hook according to my handbook is a maximum fine of $500.00 (for first offense) and possible loss of fishing gear including tackle/poles/reals/nets/saved catch.

If a DNR officer rolled up on you, you were doing everything legal, and he glanced to notice some lures over an ounce in your tackle box, I'm willing to bet everything I have that there isn't a chance he would have said anything. Especially if you're tackle box is the size of your average seasoned angler.

Then, I'm willing to wager that there isn't a chance he glanced down into your tackle box, noticed a lure weighing more then an ounce, and arrested you, and brought you to jail. THIS DIDN'T HAPPEN. Not a chance in hell.

The only thing I'm getting at, is pointless made up stories do not actually help anything, but actually gives people a bad rap, when they never did anything. If your post would have been left at what you said, there would have been people thinking you were screwed over by some power hungry DNR officer.

You weren't screwed over by the man. If you were really tossed in jail for an illegal lure, you would have sued the hell out of the state for false imprisonment. And nobody in there right mind would EVER pay a $180.00 fine for the story you're stating. Not a chance.

If you need to get off by posting :chiefwoohaw: like this, please resort to the pub. Thanks.
whatever cc, ask any of my friends, they know what happened, how about my buddy levi who was there, and got a ride home from the officer who took me to jail. i now have a misdemeanor on my record from this. who is the court going to believe, a 18 yr old kid or a dnr officer? they dropped the weighted hook fine, i still have both tickets you tool.
steveo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 18th, 2007, 11:07 PM   #39
phittie1100
Senior Member
 
phittie1100's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-27-05
Location: Burton, MI
Posts: 1,866
iTrader: (16)
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Default

But is a weighted hook illegal on a 50" trail?


The misdemeanor is the part that rubs me the wrong way. There are a whole lot of bad things you can do in a vehicle and still just get a ticket for a traffic violation. Throw a little mud on state land and they put you in the same bucket with someone who left the scene of an accident.
__________________
Paul - 2005 Wrangler Unlimited
KD8PAV
phittie1100 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 18th, 2007, 11:11 PM   #40
steveo
In the band!
 
Join Date: 03-30-07
Location: montana/wyoming
Posts: 20,293
iTrader: (6)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by phittie1100 View Post
But is a weighted hook illegal on a 50" trail?
not adjacent to a trout stream. lol.
steveo 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 01:17 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.
Page generated in 0.57176 seconds with 81 queries