- Jan 1, 2002
- 794
- 0
Notes on the public meeting in Mio regarding the "ORV Ordinance" on 8/17/04 at the Mio Community Center in Mio.
The ordinance aims to allow use of ORVs on county roads in Oscoda County. State Roads would not be open (such as M-72 and M-33). It was unclear if Forest Roads would be open or not, I believe they are not planning to open the Forest Roads, only official county roads. Only riders 16 years of age or older could operate an ORV on the county roads Right Of Way. Speed limited at 25mph and only between 8AM and 10PM. I am unclear if only the right of way (ie shoulder/ditch) would be open or if the right most portion of the road would be open when there is no ROW - I think this is not finalized in the ordinance. For those not familiar with Michigan's laws regarding ORV use, in the lower peninsula they are prohibited from being operated on public roadways; they are only allowed to operate on designated routes/trails/scramble areas. This law went into effect in 1994 (Public Act 451).
The meeting was to facilitate public communication regarding the ordinance. The Economic Development Corporation is the group "leading" the ordinance under the belief that opening the county roads to ORV use will increase patronage of local businesses by ORV Users. The county commissioners tasked them to this. Once a proposal is put together, including input from meetings such as this, they will present it to the County Commissioners with a recommendation (to enact or not, I presume).
Note also that a similar ordinance is being developed in neighboring Ogemaw county. Montmorency already has this law in effect since 1987. Presque Isle and Cheboygan have similar (possibly more restricted) laws as well. The UP has most counties open as well.
Following is a summary of what I picked up at the meeting. I have names if anyone is looking for a trend or positioning.
Of the 50 or so people that were there, most were county residents. Most of those residents were above the age of 55. My estimates put it at 80% above 55, 15% 54 to 40 and the remaining were wild guesses. Seriously, there was a large number of retired people there.
Q&A (if anyone has the answers, feel free to speak up):
Q: Liability concerning uninsured ORV operator striking a pedestrian.
A: Unknown.
Q: How would additional law enforcement be paid for?
A: Public Act 451 provides law enforcement grant moneys for ORV enforcement (from ORV sticker money).
Q: What data is available to show that local businesses would benefit by enacting the ordinance?
A: No hard data available.
Q: Why is this not being put to a vote?
A: Not sure if can go to a vote/legality of doing so.
Q: ORVs post a fire hazard.
A: Only if operating illegally (ie no spark arrestor).
Q: Who will pay for fixing damaged driveways when ORVs "tear them up".
A: Unknown (* the DNR ORV Guide says the operator is responsible for this)
Q: Why is there a set time of operation in the ordinance?
A: Safety; less likely to have alcohol related issue, for example.
Comments:
Con:
ORVs will not provide additional revenue.
ORV riders are bad, look at Bull Gap closure (referring to time that hill climb area is open during day).
Want issue to put to a vote.
Roads will be tore up. ORVs are a pollution hazard (difficult to breathe).
Liability is a big concern relating to ORV and accident with people/cars.
ORVs already riding roads illegally which has not been stopped.
ORVs trespass on private property.
ORVs are noisy, will destroy peace and quiet.
Enough things to avoid on the roads, such as bicycles, ORVs will be another major hazard.
Too many roads (729 miles cited) in Oscoda county, only 4 ambulances with 2 people to drive them; won't be able to keep up with all the carnage.
Hunters don't want ORV running through hunting area.
ORVs damage roads, road sides, driveways.
Already illegal ORV use on roads, will only be worse with ordinance.
Bad personal experiences with ORV operators at trailheads.
DNR forest managers should be consulted for their position on this matter in areas that already have county roads open.
DNR CO cited "scars" left by now closed ORV trails along road side.
Pro:
Allowing ORVs on roads provides a huge [positive] factor for injured, broke down, etc. riders allowing them to use roads to quickly get back from the trail to get help/parts/etc.
Pink Store accessible by ORVs and they are a huge portion of their business - "business is booming".
Numbers of residents in Lewiston increases from 2000 to 10,000 during snowmobile season; evidence of additional revenue.
Realtor noted that much realty business relates to ORV and related trail accessibility.
Business owner (motel) needs this revenue and had evidence of amount of $ being spent.
There was over $10,000 in fines during a 6 month period in Ogemaw county in 2003 that this ordinance would prevent (note Ogemaw, not Oscoda, was being referenced, although the same data could apply to Ogemaw).
ORV riders don't want to ride the roads, they want to get from camp or cabin/property to the trails. ORV riders want to get to gas/food/parts and only use road to get there. No "road riding" from 90% of ORV enthusiasts. ORV riding is a family sport.
ORV dealer experienced 50% drop in sales with original state legislature closing county roads (early 90s). Certain that this would help increase business.
Hunters not negatively affected by ordinance/ORV. Also rules governing hours of operation of ORVs during rifle season.
Small business supports (financially) 70% of Oscoda county, the ordinance would benefit them.
ORVs illegally operating on roads currently have speed issue because they are trying not to get caught. Making roads legal would reduce the need for speed.
Positive letters of support have been received from the Montmorency Road Commission and Sheriff's Office.
So, that's the short hand version of the meeting. I combined multiple comments from different people if it were the same theme (ie ORVs will tear up my road). Now for my take on it:
The ordinance will be good for the community and good for ORV riders. They should open the forest roads up, else there will be lots of confusion and tickets with no gain of keeping those roads closed. Keeping some roads (ie residential) closed is a smart move. They need to plan for areas the ORV will be accessing for consumables (ie town) and only open certain roads in those places (like a designated route). I think a perfect example is the snowmobile trail through Newberry - there is only one way through town, but you can hit all that you need on it (gas, food, etc). This will take some planning but is certainly feasible.
The only place roads will get tore up is if there is excessive traffic forced down it - the same as any trail system. Proper planning will prevent this. There will also be the rogue minority who find it necessary to do donuts somewhere. They are why we have law enforcement.
The insurance liability issue is something only a lawyer can answer. You can be sued for anything these days (hot coffee anyone?) so it's a safe bet there is no absolute answer. I'm curious as to the other areas (Montmorency, Presque Isle, Cheboygan, the UP) and their experience with this. I've not heard of it being an issue, maybe it is or is not. The DNR's ORV Guide indicates certain penalties and responsibility place on the ORV operator in the case of accidents, but I can't find the specific details of this.
Business owners were almost unanimous in their support of this. I think the consensus is that any business that deals with the public will benefit.
Most property owners that do not have ORVs are opposed to the ordinance, they believe only bad things will happen to them. In general these property owners were retired and were anti-recreation (citing problem canoe people, loud snowmobiles and so on). Looking at other areas where this is already legal may (or may not) answer their concerns.
Same property owners expressed concerns that they would have to foot the bill via taxes for the destruction caused by and enforcement of the ORVs. I guess anything is possible.
I hear rather frequently about ORV operators who want to access the trails from their current location be that a camp 300 yards down the road or a cabin 1 mile from the trail. This ordinance would solve that issue. I've never, ever heard an ORV rider bemoan the fact they can't cruise the gravel or paved roads of a residential area. Never.
I agree with the safety factor for getting injured riders out of the woods. Had that experience myself. Same for break downs.
The COs present (2) tried to give the impression of being neutral on the issue, but their statements (it really was the older one speaking) showed a different position. They cited damage done by ORVs and hinted that DNR Land Managers believe opening the roads would mean the destruction of everything green. He also twisted the laws around stating PA 451 was why people could no longer tear up the hill sides starting in 1991. This is not related to PA451 (closed forest and county roads) and was related to the designated trail system and the "trail is closed unless posted open" act that went into effect in 92 (or 91, memory is slipping).
One County Commissioner who spoke said he was there looking for input, then said that he was opposed to it and ORVs in general. I think he was looking for votes and playing politician by his statements - just here for input, looking for answers, then going on about noise, damage and dust.
Quick side track - they call names for the comment period. The county commish was "Mike Hunt". I kid you not. I thought it was a joke when he called "Mike Hunt" until the guy stood up. For anyone who doesn't get the Porky's reference, say "Mike Hunt" out loud rather quickly and don't be too precise in your vocalization. "Has anyone seen Mike Hunt?" Man that's a classic line.
Some of the business owners were down right angry that some residents were opposed to this. Money does make the world go 'round. Definitely a passionate issue for some people (more emotion from those against).
Something was mentioned about hunters, mushroom pickers and another non-orv recreational activity. Some people thought those Users would not like ORVs zipping about. What they fail to understand is that those ARE the people who will directly benefit by this. I've seen my share of mushroom pickers riding around on their ATV (illegally). Hunters could finally use that ATV they bought, because we know they didn't get 'em for trail riding. I'd bet the MUCC and related organizations would be very much in favor of this type of legislation.
Positive letters from Montmorency did not seem to sway those who were opposed to this. I'd figure if that county's road commission wasn't complaining about the ORVs then they couldn't be that much of a problem, if at all.
Overall I'd say that meeting was 60/40 with 60% opposed to the ordinance. That's a better ratio than I expected given that usually it's the opponents to something that make the time to show up.
I hope this gets put into law and would like to see it happen in other counties (Gladwin and Roscommon to start with).
Questions that should be further researched:
1. Liability issue. Especially involving ORV operator and licensed car and also pedestrian. Especially if ORV operator is uninsured or underage.
2. DNR Unit Manager position in counties that have county roads open to ORVs.
3. Issues from other counties involving road "damage". Is this an issue? Should include, driveway damage, dust control and related.
The ordinance aims to allow use of ORVs on county roads in Oscoda County. State Roads would not be open (such as M-72 and M-33). It was unclear if Forest Roads would be open or not, I believe they are not planning to open the Forest Roads, only official county roads. Only riders 16 years of age or older could operate an ORV on the county roads Right Of Way. Speed limited at 25mph and only between 8AM and 10PM. I am unclear if only the right of way (ie shoulder/ditch) would be open or if the right most portion of the road would be open when there is no ROW - I think this is not finalized in the ordinance. For those not familiar with Michigan's laws regarding ORV use, in the lower peninsula they are prohibited from being operated on public roadways; they are only allowed to operate on designated routes/trails/scramble areas. This law went into effect in 1994 (Public Act 451).
The meeting was to facilitate public communication regarding the ordinance. The Economic Development Corporation is the group "leading" the ordinance under the belief that opening the county roads to ORV use will increase patronage of local businesses by ORV Users. The county commissioners tasked them to this. Once a proposal is put together, including input from meetings such as this, they will present it to the County Commissioners with a recommendation (to enact or not, I presume).
Note also that a similar ordinance is being developed in neighboring Ogemaw county. Montmorency already has this law in effect since 1987. Presque Isle and Cheboygan have similar (possibly more restricted) laws as well. The UP has most counties open as well.
Following is a summary of what I picked up at the meeting. I have names if anyone is looking for a trend or positioning.
Of the 50 or so people that were there, most were county residents. Most of those residents were above the age of 55. My estimates put it at 80% above 55, 15% 54 to 40 and the remaining were wild guesses. Seriously, there was a large number of retired people there.
Q&A (if anyone has the answers, feel free to speak up):
Q: Liability concerning uninsured ORV operator striking a pedestrian.
A: Unknown.
Q: How would additional law enforcement be paid for?
A: Public Act 451 provides law enforcement grant moneys for ORV enforcement (from ORV sticker money).
Q: What data is available to show that local businesses would benefit by enacting the ordinance?
A: No hard data available.
Q: Why is this not being put to a vote?
A: Not sure if can go to a vote/legality of doing so.
Q: ORVs post a fire hazard.
A: Only if operating illegally (ie no spark arrestor).
Q: Who will pay for fixing damaged driveways when ORVs "tear them up".
A: Unknown (* the DNR ORV Guide says the operator is responsible for this)
Q: Why is there a set time of operation in the ordinance?
A: Safety; less likely to have alcohol related issue, for example.
Comments:
Con:
ORVs will not provide additional revenue.
ORV riders are bad, look at Bull Gap closure (referring to time that hill climb area is open during day).
Want issue to put to a vote.
Roads will be tore up. ORVs are a pollution hazard (difficult to breathe).
Liability is a big concern relating to ORV and accident with people/cars.
ORVs already riding roads illegally which has not been stopped.
ORVs trespass on private property.
ORVs are noisy, will destroy peace and quiet.
Enough things to avoid on the roads, such as bicycles, ORVs will be another major hazard.
Too many roads (729 miles cited) in Oscoda county, only 4 ambulances with 2 people to drive them; won't be able to keep up with all the carnage.
Hunters don't want ORV running through hunting area.
ORVs damage roads, road sides, driveways.
Already illegal ORV use on roads, will only be worse with ordinance.
Bad personal experiences with ORV operators at trailheads.
DNR forest managers should be consulted for their position on this matter in areas that already have county roads open.
DNR CO cited "scars" left by now closed ORV trails along road side.
Pro:
Allowing ORVs on roads provides a huge [positive] factor for injured, broke down, etc. riders allowing them to use roads to quickly get back from the trail to get help/parts/etc.
Pink Store accessible by ORVs and they are a huge portion of their business - "business is booming".
Numbers of residents in Lewiston increases from 2000 to 10,000 during snowmobile season; evidence of additional revenue.
Realtor noted that much realty business relates to ORV and related trail accessibility.
Business owner (motel) needs this revenue and had evidence of amount of $ being spent.
There was over $10,000 in fines during a 6 month period in Ogemaw county in 2003 that this ordinance would prevent (note Ogemaw, not Oscoda, was being referenced, although the same data could apply to Ogemaw).
ORV riders don't want to ride the roads, they want to get from camp or cabin/property to the trails. ORV riders want to get to gas/food/parts and only use road to get there. No "road riding" from 90% of ORV enthusiasts. ORV riding is a family sport.
ORV dealer experienced 50% drop in sales with original state legislature closing county roads (early 90s). Certain that this would help increase business.
Hunters not negatively affected by ordinance/ORV. Also rules governing hours of operation of ORVs during rifle season.
Small business supports (financially) 70% of Oscoda county, the ordinance would benefit them.
ORVs illegally operating on roads currently have speed issue because they are trying not to get caught. Making roads legal would reduce the need for speed.
Positive letters of support have been received from the Montmorency Road Commission and Sheriff's Office.
So, that's the short hand version of the meeting. I combined multiple comments from different people if it were the same theme (ie ORVs will tear up my road). Now for my take on it:
The ordinance will be good for the community and good for ORV riders. They should open the forest roads up, else there will be lots of confusion and tickets with no gain of keeping those roads closed. Keeping some roads (ie residential) closed is a smart move. They need to plan for areas the ORV will be accessing for consumables (ie town) and only open certain roads in those places (like a designated route). I think a perfect example is the snowmobile trail through Newberry - there is only one way through town, but you can hit all that you need on it (gas, food, etc). This will take some planning but is certainly feasible.
The only place roads will get tore up is if there is excessive traffic forced down it - the same as any trail system. Proper planning will prevent this. There will also be the rogue minority who find it necessary to do donuts somewhere. They are why we have law enforcement.
The insurance liability issue is something only a lawyer can answer. You can be sued for anything these days (hot coffee anyone?) so it's a safe bet there is no absolute answer. I'm curious as to the other areas (Montmorency, Presque Isle, Cheboygan, the UP) and their experience with this. I've not heard of it being an issue, maybe it is or is not. The DNR's ORV Guide indicates certain penalties and responsibility place on the ORV operator in the case of accidents, but I can't find the specific details of this.
Business owners were almost unanimous in their support of this. I think the consensus is that any business that deals with the public will benefit.
Most property owners that do not have ORVs are opposed to the ordinance, they believe only bad things will happen to them. In general these property owners were retired and were anti-recreation (citing problem canoe people, loud snowmobiles and so on). Looking at other areas where this is already legal may (or may not) answer their concerns.
Same property owners expressed concerns that they would have to foot the bill via taxes for the destruction caused by and enforcement of the ORVs. I guess anything is possible.
I hear rather frequently about ORV operators who want to access the trails from their current location be that a camp 300 yards down the road or a cabin 1 mile from the trail. This ordinance would solve that issue. I've never, ever heard an ORV rider bemoan the fact they can't cruise the gravel or paved roads of a residential area. Never.
I agree with the safety factor for getting injured riders out of the woods. Had that experience myself. Same for break downs.
The COs present (2) tried to give the impression of being neutral on the issue, but their statements (it really was the older one speaking) showed a different position. They cited damage done by ORVs and hinted that DNR Land Managers believe opening the roads would mean the destruction of everything green. He also twisted the laws around stating PA 451 was why people could no longer tear up the hill sides starting in 1991. This is not related to PA451 (closed forest and county roads) and was related to the designated trail system and the "trail is closed unless posted open" act that went into effect in 92 (or 91, memory is slipping).
One County Commissioner who spoke said he was there looking for input, then said that he was opposed to it and ORVs in general. I think he was looking for votes and playing politician by his statements - just here for input, looking for answers, then going on about noise, damage and dust.
Quick side track - they call names for the comment period. The county commish was "Mike Hunt". I kid you not. I thought it was a joke when he called "Mike Hunt" until the guy stood up. For anyone who doesn't get the Porky's reference, say "Mike Hunt" out loud rather quickly and don't be too precise in your vocalization. "Has anyone seen Mike Hunt?" Man that's a classic line.
Some of the business owners were down right angry that some residents were opposed to this. Money does make the world go 'round. Definitely a passionate issue for some people (more emotion from those against).
Something was mentioned about hunters, mushroom pickers and another non-orv recreational activity. Some people thought those Users would not like ORVs zipping about. What they fail to understand is that those ARE the people who will directly benefit by this. I've seen my share of mushroom pickers riding around on their ATV (illegally). Hunters could finally use that ATV they bought, because we know they didn't get 'em for trail riding. I'd bet the MUCC and related organizations would be very much in favor of this type of legislation.
Positive letters from Montmorency did not seem to sway those who were opposed to this. I'd figure if that county's road commission wasn't complaining about the ORVs then they couldn't be that much of a problem, if at all.
Overall I'd say that meeting was 60/40 with 60% opposed to the ordinance. That's a better ratio than I expected given that usually it's the opponents to something that make the time to show up.
I hope this gets put into law and would like to see it happen in other counties (Gladwin and Roscommon to start with).
Questions that should be further researched:
1. Liability issue. Especially involving ORV operator and licensed car and also pedestrian. Especially if ORV operator is uninsured or underage.
2. DNR Unit Manager position in counties that have county roads open to ORVs.
3. Issues from other counties involving road "damage". Is this an issue? Should include, driveway damage, dust control and related.
