SB 0068 ??

[Rocky]

As I usually am, I was present at the 3-6-13 ORVAW meeting in Lansing. Back in 2009,I believe Polaris solicited Rep Joel Sheltrown and successfully amended the definition of an ATV.

OLD version of MCL 324.81101 [A ] * 3-4 WHEELED VEHICLE, DESIGNATED FOR OFF-ROAD USE, THAT HAS LOW PRESSURE,BALLOON TYPE TIRES, WITH A SEAT THAT IS DESIGNED TO BE STRADDLED BY THE OPERATOR, POWERED BY AN ENGINE FROM 50cc ON UP TO 500cc.

AMENDED VERSION OF MCL 324.81101 [ A ] on 12-29-09 *3-4 or 6 WHEELED VEHICLE DESIGNED FOR OFF ROAD USE, THAT HAS LOW PRESSURE, BALLOON TYPE TIRES, WITH A SEAT THAT IS DESIGNED TO BE STRADDLED BY THE OPERATOR, POWERED BY AN ENGINE FROM 50cc ON UP TO 1000cc

I contacted Sheltrowns office regarding this amendment back in 2009 when they were drafting it. I believe his Rational for the amendment was so that the Polaris Side x Sides could be included as an ATV, which didn't change it to an ATV anyways, because you don't STRADDLE the seat on a Side X Side [ even with the amendment, the SxS is still an ORV ]. The rational was absolutely meaningless because the Polaris SxS was already established as a ORV under Michigan law and since it was wider than 50 inches, it didn't matter if it was classified as an ATV or an ORV, it could STILL only be used on a ORV Route because of its WIDTH. They rushed the amendment on 12-29-09 so they wouldn't have to re-claim it in 2010. His amendment did absolutely NOTHING for the Polaris SxS here in Michigan IMO.

NOW, we have SB 0068 at our hands introduced on 1-24-13 which : VEHICLES, OFF ROAD, DEFINITION OF ATV, REVISE TO CREATE SEPARATE CATEGORY OF RECREATIONAL OFF-ROAD VEHICLES. AMENDS SECS 81101,81129 & 81130

We already have ENOUGH confusement over what the difference between an ATV and an ORV is. Now with 0068, we will have yet ANOTHER catagory of ORV, the ROV

''ROV'' MEANS A VEHICLE WITH 4 OR MORE WHEELS THAT IS DESIGNED FOR OFF ROAD USE, HAS NON HIGHWAY TIRES, IS MORE THAN 50 INCHES IN WIDTH BUT NOT MORE THAN 65 INCHES IN WIDTH, AND IS POWERED BY A 50cc - 1000cc GASOLINE ENGINE , AN ENGINE OF COMPARABLE SIZE USING OTHER FUELS, OR AN ELECTRIC MOTOR OF COMPARABLE POWER

BEFORE Sheltrowns amendment on 12-29-09, the above ROV was legally classified as a ORV under Michigan law and could only be operated on ORV Routes because it was wider than 50 inches in width. Than Sheltrown meaninglessly amended the definition of an ATV in 2009 [ IMO ]. Now we have Senator Hansen playing the same meaningless game [ with SB 0068 ] as Sheltrown did in 2009 by wanting to classify this ORV vehicle over to an ROV.

It does not matter if you call the Side x Side a PIG in Michigan. If ANY Off road vehicle is wider than 50 inches in width, it can still only be operated on ORV ROUTES or designated scramble areas-- [and parts of PA 240 ] PERIOD! REGARDLESS OF WHAT YOU CLASSIFY IT AS!

Most of Michigan's newer [ and many older ] ORV riders already have a hard enough time understanding where they can legally operate an ATV or ORV, now we have to confuse them even more by adding yet another meaningless [ IMO ] catagory of ROV to the mix.

WHY?

[Renegade II]

There was a sxs thread going pretty good here a while back.

http://www.glfwda.org/showthread.php?t=12622

[Rocky]

There was a sxs thread going pretty good here a while back.

http://www.glfwda.org/showthread.php?t=12622

Thanks Renegade, however, its says that I dont have the priviledge to access that page. Perhaps you have to be a member to access that page?

[DDS4X4]

Probably, it is in the Members Only section.

[Rocky]

Thats what I was thinking too. I saw Pat Brower at the ORVAW meeting this past Wednesday, perhaps he'll shine a little light on this topic.

[TWEAK]

Hi Rocky – I was at the ORVAW meeting last Wednesday as well, although I don’t think that we had the pleasure to meet. I am the new Land Use Committee Chairman and as such will be taking a more active role in these types of issues. Pat Brower has a wealth of information and although I have not heard of SB 68, I know that Pat had more information on the Polaris solicited Represented. I don’t recall this amendment coming up at the ORVAW meeting; but I could have easy of missed that as I was trying to absorb a lot of info.

If you don’t mind me asking, where did you hear about SB 68?

The description of the “new” category of ORV is quite interesting. I have not heard of the ROV or Recreational Off -Highway Vehicle description before, but a quick Google search has it showing up on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ROV) basically saying a Side by side or UTV. Furthermore, searching for Recreational Off-Highway Vehicle returns a website called rohva.org (http://www.rohva.org/) or Recreational Off-Highway Vehicle Association. This association interesting enough is sponsored (per the link on the bottom of the page) by Arctic Cat, BRP, John Deere, Kawasaki, Polaris and Yamaha. Interesting!

My speculation to the reason to reclassify these types of vehicles is to further push for ROV only trails or 65” only trails. Some more research needs to be done to understand what if any impact this has on a full size ORV’s or what new opportunities this may introduce for our sport. Since this class of vehicles are so similar to a full sized ORV (i.e. over 50”, ride “in” not “on”, etc) it seems to make sense to partner with SxS owners where possible.

Looking from the owner of a SxS’s perspective they are also denied the right to ride on a 50” trail (justifiably so from a safety standpoint) but also because they are not street legal they cannot ride on forest roads (although they can ride on some county roads).

[Rocky]

TWEAK,
sorry my friend, I don't know how we missed each other either, especially when we factor in that there were not very many folks at the meeting in the first place. Google Michigan legislature and do a search for SB 0068 once you get there, it should pop up and give you the pdf or html readout of the Bill. And on my way out, Pat suggested that I look into this Bill as well.

If SB 0068 is attempting to make yet another classification of ORV's in order to give the S x S riders some 65 trails to operate on, it makes absolutely no sense to me, to put the category of ROV in place BEFORE we actually have the 65 inch trail legislated into law
. In other words, wouldn't you think that the legislature would first make sure there are legislated designated 65 trails FIRST, BEFORE they legislate another useless classification of ORVs over to ROVs? When Representative Sheltrown amended the definition of an ATV on 12-29-09, it served absolutely NO purpose what so ever for Michigan ORVers. It was a complete waste of his time.

And at who's expense will they make a 65 ROV trail? I suspect they will take from the full size guys because we do NOT have enough $$ in the ORV fund to make new 65 inch trails. And im NOT betting that the new proposed two tier 26.50 and 36.50 ORV sticker is going to fly either. I do not support it until we take care of other ORV issues that been haunting us for ages now. The DNR has been wasting a lot of our dollars for a lot of years and I am not going to support the '' no accountability '' stuff again by this administration. I was at the board meeting about a year ago when some of the members of the ORVAW board was telling Polaris how many 1000s of miles [ ORV Routes ] they have to operate their S x S on, and thought it was absolutely redicules at best. Very very few riders want to operate their ATV's and ORVs on wide open trails, most are looking for a challenge. When the ORVAW board members told Sam Boumis [ Polaris ] they have all these 1000s of miles of ROUTE to operate on, I felt like telling everybody to just turn the ENTIRE 3600 mile trail system into Routes. Bikes, ATVs, S x S and full size would all have the same stuff to ride on, but we both know, that would not be exciting at all.

Do I think the S x S guys deserve some 65 inch trail? You bet, just like I think the full size guys deserve more challenging places to operate their full size 4x4s. And i'm an ATVer.

[TWEAK]

Rocky – are you on the ORVAW board or where you there as a public guest? Pat introduced me to a few folks, but like I said I have a lot to learn and was soaking up a lot of information.

I agree with your statement about challenging areas. Personally I love the tight and twisty trails in my Jeep and would love to see more of them. From a trail and route perspective I think that we really have two areas that continually need to be addressed to please all variety of users. They are:

1.) Providing access to “destinations” to all types of ORV users. These are things like Diamond Head on Drummond Island. The route/trail to get there may be shared by all ORV enthusiasts. The process of getting there might not be a “challenge” but the destination is worth the trek.

2.) Providing challenging/interesting trails for all classes of ORV enthusiasts in areas that might not have a well-defined “destination”. These might be areas with hill climbs or just flat areas that have tight/twisty trails routed through them.

Truthfully I think that a quick win is making all ORV’s accessible to Forest Roads. In most counties in Northern Michigan you can ride an ORV on a county road but once you reach a forest road you are SOL unless you are SOS licensed. Yes these are not the “challenging” trails, but it would allow one on an ORV to trek across county to a “challenging” area.

We now are starting to get more challenging areas for Full Size ORV’s like the St. Helen Rock area after years of pressure and commitment from organizations like GLFWDA. I don’t own a UTV (or ROV now I guess lol) but would be very interested in understanding what types of challenges this user-group is really interested in developing.

Regarding the ORV two tier $26.50 and $36.50 proposal – I think that it is very confusing and although it is stated that all money will stay within the current propitiations I can see where it could very easily change. The fact that the $26.50 ORV Sticker only gets you access to ride on the shoulder of county roads makes me believe that this money could easily be used elsewhere down the road. This was supposed to be discussed on Thursday and am curious if Mr. Brower has an update as to what the status is???

[Rocky]

I was the person sitting to the immediate right of Pat, im ''thinking'' that maybe you were the gentleman sitting to my right??? As long as the ORVAW Board members are completely selected by the DNR, I have 000000000001 % chance of ever making it as a member of any ORV Board selected by them.I believe that some ORV Board members should be selected by the public, not the DNR. After all, its OUR $$ supporting OUR sport! There are some very good ORV folks like Paul Mulder, who,like me, will never make the ORV board. Paul and I do not tell the DNR what we think they want to hear all the time. If we think something inappropriate is happening within our sport, we try to work with them to fix it, than when they ignore or kick us to the curb, we can/will be outspoken regarding the matter.

I have been involved in these ORV board meetings since 1999, have openly expressed my displeasure with a few ORV issue's [ as have others ] and have applied for most every ORV board position available, only to be completely ignored by the DNR.

Back in 2005, there were SO many complaints regarding the mismanagement of the DNR's ORV Safety Education program, that the DNR had to put together a ORV safety education ''task force'' to address these issues. I was selected to this 2 year work group. I drove to Lansing for 2 years on my own time/fuel,to meet up with DNR personnel to help correct these issues,only to have the DNR abolish this group about two years after we started it. DNR said that they had personnel issues and could no longer spare the manpower for this task force.Than around 2009 or so, they find the $$ in our sport to pay a full time DNR Coordinator and they re-kindled this ORV safety Education task force back up. DNR sends me an application to be a member of this group, but under the new management of a new DNR ORV Safety Ed coordinator, I was completely ignored,despite already volunteering 2 years of my time from 2005- 2007. Admittedly, I was one of the biggest outspoken folks who did not like the MANY years [ 7.5 years ] of misdirection and non-structure regarding the DNRs ORV Safety Education program and certification of instructors. Today, some of of the DNR personnel harbor a disdain dislike for me because I brought forward their mismanagement of instructor certification, classroom structure and mismanagement of our ORV $$ within the ORV safety program. As I've already mentioned, as long as the ORV Board is selected by the DNR, I stand little/no chance of ever being selected to it.

If I sat on that Board, we would not be discussing raising the ORV sticker fee's BEFORE we addressed bringing back statutory power back to the ORV board [MSTAC & ORVAW are boards who can only ''RECOMMEND''],or, amending laws to allow the public to select their own people to the ORV Board and not the DNR. We would also be discussing amending laws that make it legal for youth under the age of 12 to operate a properly sized ATV on Michigan's designated trails, just like their cycle buddies been able to do for years. Im not against raising sticker fee's, but we need to change a few things first. Most on this ORVAW board only care about the $$ needed to sustain status quo, while im looking at how we can TRIM the wasteful spending too.


Forest road openings? You bet! lets get them open, this surly will help.

[TWEAK]

I was sitting behind you.