2TrakR

~SPONSOR~
Mi. Trail Riders
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.
 

WildBill

~SPONSOR~
Mi. Trail Riders
Mar 29, 2002
281
0
2TrakR,

Thanks for the information. Did anyone reference the portion of "trail" that allows access from the Mio trailhead for Bullgap into town to access Walkers and the Shell for food/gas? The "trail" runs the shoulder up M-72 to the parking lot behind Walkers and runs right past the police station. I don't ride that section of Bull Gap often, but I did this spring and I did not notice any of the carnage that they envision happening. On the other hand, the decimation (Quads?) of the Bull Gap trail system is quite evident in areas along M-33 and doesn't paint a pretty picture of Off-Road ATV use.

Please keep us posted and let us know what we can do to help. My buddy owns a cabin and lists it as his residence on the west shore of Loon Lake across from the Pink Store. We ride out to the trails from his cabin when all riders are dual-sported, but otherwise we need to trailer out and that usually leads us to go farther than the M-33 trailhead out to St. Helen. Atlanta, etc. so that it is worthwhile to trailer. Right there, we are taking our money out with us. Even when we do ride out from the cabin, we still stay to the shoulder and under 25mph out of courtesy to those enjoying the peace and serenity of the north woods.

Thanks again,
 

Trailridin

Member
Mar 22, 2002
28
0
Montmorency, Presque Isle and Cheboygan Counties

2TrakR,
Could you list your sources (websites, contacts) for information on the county ordinances for counties in the lower peninsula that allow unlicensed ORV use on county roads. For example, what are the exact regulations concerning use on county roads, forest roads, etc. Why have I never heard of this before and why doesn't the Cycle Conservation Club let this be known to their members? :think: I was under the impression that the regulations for ORV use were the same for all lower peninsula counties. Thanks for the information on the meeting and please keep us posted. I for one would love to see any legislation of this type and would target camping in the counties that offer this convenience to access trails.
 
Last edited:

dan1608

~SPONSOR~
Jul 31, 2003
41
0
I ride the Bull Gap trail system quite often. I ride my bike into Mio following the access route to get gas and stop at Walkers for lunch and I haven't seen any carnage. I also ride into McKinley for gas and lunch and haven't seen any carnage there either. I was riding along the section of trail just north of the pink store that runs along M-33 about a month ago and almost ran into a Kawasaki gator running the trail. I think they're called Gators. Six wheels, look like an off road golf cart. As fast as I was going if I would have hit him that might have been classified as carnage
 

Trailridin

Member
Mar 22, 2002
28
0
Presque Isle County ORV Ordinance

Well, I did some searching on the web and found an ORV ordinance for Preque Isle County from 1986. Here is the link from the Presque Isle County Sheriff's Office.

ORV Laws in Presque Isle County

I am not sure if these regulations are current, but the website appears up to date. I still could not find anything on ORV ordinances in Montmorency and Cheboygan Counties. If anyone has some info please post it.
 

KTM Mike

~SPONSOR~
Mi. Trail Riders
Apr 9, 2001
2,086
0
I live in Montmorency County, and work in Oscoda county, so can offer a local perspective.

In Montmorency county (sorry, I dont have the exact ordinace), quads are all over the back roads. To be honest, much of the "legal" ORV use on county roads does not appear to be primarily to get to the trails, rather it is people simply out bombing around on the quad, or more likely than not, on their way ride their favorite (illegal) trail! Now to be fair, there is some legit traffic to the legal trail system.

About 2 years ago the issue of road damage did come up at a county comish meeting, but quickly died away. The Sherrif and his officers all seem to have no issues with quads etc. It is just part of life up here. I think it quite significant that Montmorency County provided a letter of support for the ordinance.

Now, Oscoda county - in my opinion, a VERY conservative area. Less so in Mio proper, EXTREMELY so near Fairview. (not far from McKinley) Keep in mind this is a area loaded with Amish familys, traditional, conservative Mennonite heritage. Honest hard working, conservative OLD folk. MANY OLD folk (I gotta be careful - I work for a place whose mission is caring for them old folk!)

In both counties, I know of many quad riders whose primary riding is the back roads! Spoke to a kid that works at a gas station in Fairview, lives near Comins, just a couple weeks ago... he had just bought a new YFZ450 quad (whatever all them letters are but the now hot Yamaha quad)...i asked where does he ride, his answer to the effect of "I sneak up to Montmorency County and ride the roads - you know it is legal there. But sometimes, i like to ride Bull Gap."" this is consistent with where i see all the tracks!

I think we need to be aware there is a great risk of such becoming a problem. I am however worried that a no vote one county south of me will close the roads I use regularily.

Also of recent note. About 2 weeks ago the Montmorency County Tribune published 2 articles about off road riding in the area, and there was a special comment from the editor in editorial section. All VERY positive about off road riders. This is a significant improvement from few years ago when the editor (someone I know personally) was rather down on us biker trash. I took him to task about a series of negative letters to the editor and comments from him in a "letter to the editor" I sent in. To his credit he published it! Prior to this he did not know I was an off road rider as he only new me in my "professional" capacity. He along with a number of other conservative tree hugger types I know all acknowledged I had some valid points. Any how...the point is, opinions can and do change. We now have a supporter in our local paper.

Is there anything I can do locally? I live right here and would be willing to help to the best of my (limited?) ability.
 

2TrakR

~SPONSOR~
Mi. Trail Riders
Jan 1, 2002
794
0
dan1608 said:
I ride the Bull Gap trail system quite often. I ride my bike into Mio following the access route to get gas and stop at Walkers for lunch and I haven't seen any carnage.

Some of the locals at the meeting specifically complained of "ruts" along Cass St, which is part of the Mio access route, I believe. One gentleman in particular mentioned this in conjunction with the cemetary.

dan1608 said:
almost ran into a Kawasaki gator running the trail.

The majority of those are illegal for use on ORV Trails (Routes = OK). Not that being illegal would mean anything, obviously they were still on the trail. This is one of the downsides of the USFS widening the ORV Trails to 60" in the Bull Gap/Meadows systems.

KTM Mike said:
Is there anything I can do locally?

Things that can help include writing a letter of support to the Ogemaw and Oscoda county respective chamber of commerce and attending any public meetings to show support of the ordinance (I'm not aware of any off-hand).

Trailridin said:
Why have I never heard of this before and why doesn't the Cycle Conservation Club let this be known to their members?

Not sure, I'll ask Bill and see. I'd bet it's "old" news (to some) and so just hasn't been published in the GLTR for 10 years.
I'm not aware of any web sites that have these ordinances available (for the counties that have it legal). There are a few of the UP counties who have the ordinance available (Luce and Houghton) on their sites.
 

dan1608

~SPONSOR~
Jul 31, 2003
41
0
My son asked me the other day why it's ok to ride snowmobiles along the sides of the roads but not off road vehicles. I didn't have an answer. Anybody know?
 

WildBill

~SPONSOR~
Mi. Trail Riders
Mar 29, 2002
281
0
Dan,

My point about the access routes to Mio and the McKinley route as well, was that they were in good shape the last time I was through those areas. There are areas of significant damage just North of the M-33 parking lot and that is what I meant to refer to.

Thanks for the updates guys, please keep us posted and aware of what we can do to help.
 

dan1608

~SPONSOR~
Jul 31, 2003
41
0
WildBill,
I was being sarcastic. My wife says I am very sarcastic. I thought the use of the word carnage by the person at the meeting was a little strong. I think that his point was there would be an increase in accidents and not enough emergency services to handle them. To use the word carnage envokes images of smoking wreckage and headless bodies. I'm sorry.
 

WildBill

~SPONSOR~
Mi. Trail Riders
Mar 29, 2002
281
0
Dan,

No problem. I was afraid of being mis-understood or having mis-stated my thoughts. Thanks for your efforts on behalf of all of our riding brethren, especially considering we lost one of our own last Sunday.

Ride on!
 

MWEISSEN

Whaasssup?
Mi. Trail Riders
LIFETIME SPONSOR
Dec 6, 1999
2,233
0
dan1608 said:
My son asked me the other day why it's ok to ride snowmobiles along the sides of the roads but not off road vehicles. I didn't have an answer. Anybody know?

I think it was the revenue generated by snowmobiles and the political clout they had back when this law was enacted.
 
P

party152

Oscoda County ORV

Has anyone heard anything about Oscoda county ORV use on the county roads. If HB 4323 passes will it help to get us get ORV use on county roads. I live 3 miles from the trailhead and am tired of trailering every time i want to go ride. I know this is old news but wuold like any current info if it is out there!!

Thanks
 

2TrakR

~SPONSOR~
Mi. Trail Riders
Jan 1, 2002
794
0
Generally speaking, all counties that were considering such new legislation are on hold until HB4323 is passed. Oscoda went a different direction with a county-wide project to improve recreational opportunities including both motorized and non-motorized. From what I seen of the master plan, motorized was pretty low on the list, but nothing was final at that time. Hopefully they will re-visit this once we get 4323 passed.
 

North Star

Member
Apr 12, 2007
3
0
To save on the bandwidth at this site by not repeating what is on this thread at atvoffroad.net forums

The discussion it is under the "bar and grill" portion of this forum "message from Dick Ranney". There's a long discussion on HB 4323 then an update on Oscoda County. Which in a nutshell, it is rumored that the new county wide ordinance is not going to be in effect for a while yet.

As a business owner here in Oscoda County the sooner this gets passed the better for everyone.

Hope the above helps,
Karen
North Star Resort
Mio, MI
 
P

Party152

Thanks for the info. I moved to Mio after their attempt to make county roads legal. Hopefully we can get this pushed through.

Thanks!!!
 
Top Bottom