Trail maintenance Insurance

[Ironman]

Not really, I spoke with the only prospect we have to obtain this policy and he tells me that if we do get coverage it will be at a minimum of $5000.00 per year.

After it is all said and done that would only leave us with $1900.00 for our efforts.

Is that really woth it?

Not really considering all of the man hours and and the outlaying of some of those funds to cover the cost of the meals we are providing to the workers.

Your thoughts?

Pat

[Roadhouse]

Can we live without that $1900 a year?

How about cancelling the dinners, and just hope people show up to help. I hope the free meal wasn't the incentive our members needed to show up.

[DDS4X4]

With the current cost of insurance, which is required by the DNR??? to do trail maintenance, will they consider raising the grant $$$ levels to match the insurance run up?

If not, does that insurance cover all year?? Can we get more miles to be reimbursed for, to help offset our up front costs?? The DNR, or whoever, needs to be reasonable.

I agree with cutting our expenses, I wouldn't come just for a meal ... but I haven't made it yet, due to distance, time and other. But I keep looking at my schedule to fit it in with some other reason to come North.

[brewmenn]

I think it would be worth it even if we made nothing off it. Isn't part of teh point of doing it to show the DNR that we're willing to help maintain what is avalible to us in hopes that maybe some day we'll get more?

[Ironman]

I have spoke with the folks that are at everyone of these work weekends and they have all said that no it isnt worth the time and personal expense for a $1900.00

Especially when we have been getting roughly $5000.00 for the same work.

There is more to it than the money, although that is the main driving force.
The fact that the DNR requires US to assume all liability 24 hours a day 365 days a year for something we only have control over for a few minutes at a time when we are actually at an intersection doing the work.

This is something we have fought over with them for a while now. Why are these small clubs assuming liability for an entire trail system after the work they have done has been signed off on as being complete and per specifications. Shouldnt the State with its millions of dollars and its own attorneys be liable for these trails after their own employe's have signed off that they meet specs.

For $1900.00 we get to be the States "fall guy's" if someone were to get injured and sue us. It is hard to find a lawyer to fight for us when our piggy bank has such pathetic fundage.

The Cycle Conservation club lost a million dollar law suit just 2 years ago over trail maintenance. Luckily for them they had a much larger piggy bank.

And to answer Dougs proposal of asking for more miles, this has been done the last three years we have applied for these grants. We have recieved a few more as the ATV club dropped out of the program due to insurance issues. And if we were to pick up more miles who would do them? We are exhuasting our normal work crew now with the miles we have.

There is the possibility that we will get the reimbursement rate per mile raised but it will only add a couple of hundred dollars to that measly amount we are sticking our necks out for. I had a post detailing these proposed changes to our ORV program. Mr. Paul Mulder and myslef attended a workshop for grant sponsors back in October 04 and we, along with all the other grant sponsers made it very clear that if something isnt done soon about the ins., reimbursment rates, and that the fact we are assuming all liability around the clock we are not going to have such a thing as "user Group involvement" in what is supposed to be a user group run program.

And to be honest we beleive that is what the DNR ultimatley wants, control over the trail system and the money the ORV stickers bring in. You see if they do not change the current system to something reasonable that allows us to still be involved without assuming all risk they themselves will hire summer employe's to do the work and raise the rates per mile to cover that cost and the cost of the 'paperwork" that will be involved.

keep in mind that this ORV trail program started with the clubs putting these trails on the ground and having the DNR as the program manager and for enforcement.
It has shifted from that to something so far away from that original plan to total DNR control. It is so bad that the ORV advisory board asks themselves why they even bother to show up for the advisory board meetings, as it does not even matter what direction or avice they give the DNR it falls on deaf ears.

We have alredy seen the first take over of these grants being given to a federal agency, the fine folks at the Manistee national forest put in for a grant to do the State trails that run through that forest and they were awarded those grants.
this clearly violates the original legislation that stated that these grants were only available to, due to me not knowing the exact verbage I will just say that that these grants were not legislated for any government use. I need to get some clarification on this one before I go quoting and then be punished for mispeaking on a public forum.

In case you havent noticed I could go on and on about this topic but in reallity what it boils down to is the fact that do we want to assume such risk for $1900.00 for trails that we ourselves do not ever use? Or do we want to stand our ground and let the DNR know that is somethign does not happen soon the destruction of our ORV program falls on their shoulders?

[Ironman]

Bruce, the DNR will never give us more of what we want. They will give us more of the same, do you want more of the same? These routes that we currently are doing this maintenence on are useless to us and the way we have built our vehicles. Why are they like this you ask?

Becuase MI state law says that if a 2 wheel drive car cant traverse it then you cant be there, in other words, we will only get the type of trail we have now, and that is the flat dusty roads that offer no challenge.

The rocks at St. Helens Motorsport area have been given to the states Atty. General for review, I have been told not to be optimistic about ever seeing them on the ground.

The only way we are going to get more trails on state land, that appeal to us, is to change the law.

You are going to have to take my word on some of these things I write about on here, untill you see for yourself first hand what we are up against!

The ORV board meetings and the ORV program are not the places to get more trails, your legislators are! And untill we can get more fullsize folks to contact them we will still be where we are now. So when everyone asks what they can do for GL here is your answer we have been telling you for years, CONTACT your state representitives!

And when you ask what GL does for you? Take a look around and ask your self who is GL? IT IS ALL OF US! So lets spend more time writing our legislators and less time on here talking about it.

[Roadhouse]

Well the way Pat sums it up, I agree unless the rules are changed and we aren't lialble 24/7 365, then lets walk away from it. We can find other outlets and fundraisers to help raise some money for us.

Pat I assume that $5000 a year for trail maint insurance, is not the same insurance policy that would cover us for events.

[Ironman]

No it is just for maintenence, the event policy would be coming from a different company. If it was for both we might be looking at it being viable.

[brewmenn]

Pat, the more i think about your comments the more I worry that maybe Great Lakes is going in the wrong direction. The DNR HAS given me places that will challenge my vehicle. St. Helens and Silver Lake come to mind. Not your type of thing? Want tougher trails and rocks? Want bigger hills? Don't blame the DNR, blame the forces of nature that created Michigans topograghy. Lets face it, Lower Michigan is mostly a big pile of sand and gravel with a few mud holes mixed it. So what do you want the DNR to do? Let us run through wetlands? the greenies would have thier heads for that. Let us climb every hill we want? Go looks at Bull Gap and St. Helens and you'll see that we do in fact tear hills up when we climb them. I don't want to see every hill torn up like that. Tight twistly trails become flat dusty roads after several years of usage. I pre-ran some of the Snoblind trails with Frank several weeks ago and they are going on some pretty challenging hills that are approved by the DNR. The same goes for some of the trails I was planning on running on my winter run (which is apperently dead now due to lack of insurance).

The attitide of "the DNR isn't doing anything for me so why should I help them" sound dangeriously like the people who say "I won't join GLFWDA because they aren't doing anything for me". True, most of the "ORV routes" offer nothing in the way of challenge for the way many of us have biult our rigs, but they do offer a nice drive though the forest and some even offer some challenge to stock vehicles. I think it would be a mistake for us to consentrate to much of our attention to people with built rigs and turn our back on those with stock vehicles. I think that getting more of the casual 4x4 users, hunters, fishermen, people just interested in "two tracking", involved might be our biggest oppertunity to get the type of numbers we're looking for.

Also, I was under the inpression that the "2 wheel drive car cant traverse it then you cant be there" thing was a DNR policy and not a state law. I know of places where there is no way a 2 wheel drive car could go but as far as I know are prefectly legal because they are a public right of way. But they are not in areas patroled by the DNR. I suspect that one reason for this rule is the concern over liability. All it would take would be for one person to try to drive down it, get stuck, and then get hurt or killed tring to get thier vehicle unstuck and you know they'd sue the state or whatever government body was responsible for that road. The same goes for adding rocks or other obsicles where they don't exist naturally. With our "sue happy" society and "bleeding heart" court system I don't blame the state one bit for not wanting to accept the responsibility for adding things like that.

I think that given the current political climate and financialy situation in the state of Michigan right now we should consider holding on to what we have to be an accomplishment. I hope that both will change at some point in the future and hope that we're poised to take advantage of it when it does.

[SKIP]

We don't just concentrate on people with built vehicles...

We want the DNR to spend some of the money we give them to do some "physical" maintenance on the trails, other wise they become just like you said, "flat".

Are those "approved" hills approved for all year, or just SNOBLIND?

Most people active in the association want a challenge.

<span style="font-family:Arial">I'm still waiting for all those "ACTION PLANS" I requested from everyone in a past post. I haven't seen one appear yet, just a lot of posturing...</span>

[brewmenn]

It's my understanding that everything they run is legal to run year round. Otherwise it would fall under the "event trails" rule which we were told last year that the DNR was no longer supporting. But i could by wrong about that.

I know that we currently don't just concentrate on people with built vehicles, but Pats comments made it sound to me like we were going to move more in that direction and I am saying that I don't think thats the direction I think we should be moving.

I agree that most people in the association want challenging wheeling areas. I'm just wondering how much of a challenge the DNR could actually create in lower Michigan even if they wanted to.

[Roadhouse]

We already have tons of trails that are challenging for a stock vehicle. And I personally like a lot of those trails, as my Grand is not highly modified. What we need is something challenging for a modified vehicle. Will the DNR ever do it? I don't think so, and agree with Bruce it wont happen because of liabilty. Look at the Mounds...they took the concrete wall out becuase of liabilty, if Genesee County Parks see liability an issue, you know the state does.

I'm sure it would never happen, but what we need is for the state to open and orv park like they did in Minnesota. Or some privately owned park. But unfortunatly I never win the lotto when its 200mill. :D

Bruce your also right with we are limited to the terrian our state has.....mud and sand. I personally don't have a problem with that, as I knew thats all we had when I started wheeling and built a couple of rigs. But DNR please leave the existing hill climbs and muddy trails open....DONT close them off, and drop that stupid 2wheel dirve car rule. Thats all I'm asking for and the main reason I pay my dues into GL every year. Just hoping my $35 will help in that cause someday I wish more people would leave the Mounds for 10minutes and see it the way I see it.

[Ironman]

Bruce, I have responded to you comments in the GL members only section.

Please read!