The Argo Bill is back

[2TrakR]

Introduced on October 20, 2005 , House Bill 5343, by Hildenbrand, Eisenheimer,Stakoe,Casperson,Baxter, Nitz and Walker.

Defines and ATV to be 3-4 or 6 wheels

A bench seat or one to be straddled

60" or less in width

Up to a 900cc engine

"Forest trail" definition changes from 50" to 60"

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.asp?page=getObject&objName=2005-HB-5343

This one is sponsored by another Legislator, not Garcia, but it's obviously aimed at the same User crowd and same reasons.

We need to tell them that we don't want this change.

Wider trails are faster and more dangerous. The cost to widen the trails would be huge. Imagine a Rhino hitting Gladwin sized whoops at speed, that would be major carnage!

Just think about this - a Jeep Wrangler and a Geo Tracker both have footprints less than 60 inches meaning they too could get down these wider trails. Not that they would be legal, but when has that stopped 'em before? At least right now they normally can't physically fit down the trail.

If they really do want to provide more riding opportunities for the larger rig crowd (ie Rhino/Mule/Argo) then they need to open the forest roads in the lower peninsula. At the very least, designate a lot more of them open as ORV Routes than are currently available.

 

[YZMAN400]

Who do we complain to ...(who should we have killed.....) did I just say that out loud?? :laugh:

Got an e-mail adress that we can flood with coments?

 

[2TrakR]

I just _knew_ somebody would ask for that... First guy is sponsoring this bill.

Hildenbrand, Dave R
517-373-0846
[email protected]

Walker, Howard R
517-373-1766
[email protected]

Nitz, Neal R
517-373-1796
[email protected]

Baxter, Rick R
517-373-1795
[email protected]

Casperson, Tom R
517-373-0156
[email protected]

Stakoe, John R
517-373-2616
[email protected]

 

[woodsracer369]

Sent my objections to Rep Hildenbrand. Also, I will be contacting my local represntative.


I encourage everyone to voice their opinions.

Trevor

 

[2TrakR]

Ranney has some more to add on this:
OVER 1,000 MILES OF ORV TRAIL TO BE DESTROYED?

HB 5343 could do just that. You read the Bill by going to Michigan Compiled Law, hit Bills up on the left and punch in 5343 in the box. It is 6 pages and the changes are mostly in bold print.

Without getting into all of the "what might happen" things, here it is in a nutshell.

HB 5343, would widen all 50" trails, to 60", we have well over 1,000 miles of such trail and are marked "open to ATV travel" and "motorcycle".

In addition, it changes the definition of an ATV to a "3-wheel, 4-wheel, or 6 wheel" vehicle. Further states on line 4, has "a bench seat" and in line 5, changes displacement to "900cc".

This means, on the trail, will be many new vehicles, including some small trucks, golf carts and 6 wheeled vehicles. "Routes" are the intended place for those vehicles to be.

If you disagree with this language, we urge you to contact those*Representives sponsoring HB5343, in addition, contact your own Representative by going to most any user site, including the AMA,*and look up your elected Representative. Send them an e-mail stating your position on this matter!

 

[Fred T]

MY letters went out tonight

I am writing regarding:



HB 5343, a bill to amend 1994 Public Act 451 sections 8101 and adding sections 81101a.



As a taxpayer and purchaser of ORV certificates and user of the existing trail system I am appalled at the chance that our Michigan ORV trail system will be destroyed by widening the trails even further by your support of this bill. It just lacks any common sense. The wider any road is the higher the speeds can be obtained. Do you really want to make our trail system more dangerous? We have 72 inch route available for the vehicles that require such a wide path but to take every ORV route, trail in Michigan and widen them all is unbelievable! Our current trail size standards are more than adequate and to be honest the 50 inch trails are already getting dangerous with head on collisions at speeds now. Can you imagine the repercussions if they are all so wide that the high powered off road vehicles can obtain speeds in excess of 60 MPH easily? Our trail systems will turn into the autobahn.



Do you want your name attached to being responsible for all the injury and death resultant of such disrespect for allowing natural barriers and widths of trails to remain such that these speeds are not possible to reach as it is now? I mean you are supporting it and for what? Money? There cannot be any other motivation to support something that lacks such common sense and the safety of the people that elected you to protect them.



I offer you that opportunity to rethink your support for this bill and instead just open up the forest road system to support these vehicles while keeping the motorcyclists and ORV riders safe. I sincerely wouldn’t want to be out there where less than responsible riders can kill me, my family members and my friends while just trying to enjoy on of the recreational activities in this wonderful state.



The active ORV community is aware of your current position and we will be watching how this is handled closely, the supporters of the vehicles behind this are a small part of the overall ORV population and the majority of us will not allow this to proceed with our repercussions. We have organizations watching you and we are members of these organizations, we cannot let our trail system be ruined and become too dangerous to use!



Fred Thompson

Bay City, Michigan

 

[70 marlin]

Nice letter Fred! I sent it to all my reps also!

 

[WildBill]

Fred,

Thanks for posting your letter. I too used yours, but altered it to avoid the "cookie cutter" effect. Mine will go out this morning.

 

[2TrakR]

(From Bill Chapin)

All Concerned ORV Enthusiasts.

As of this writing HB 5343 has been pulled from tomorrows Committee Meeting Calander due to non support.

In Rep. Joel Sheltron words:
House Bill 5343 is no longer scheduled for House Conservation Committee tomorrow. The bill was advertised as being supported by the user groups. Once your e-mails arrived in legislators in-boxes this morning, it became apparent this was not the case and the bill would not have enough votes for support.

-Rep. Joel Sheltrown

We now will need to work woith the various legislators and committee members to create workable and supportable legislation as we have been working on at the ORV Taskforce Level. Our goal in that setting is to carry forward amendants that were workable and all the groups and department would support in the endeavor that we all would be supporting rather than opposing or amending. . Maybe that just makes too much sense.
Had the bill sponsors worked with all of us and the Department to create this legislation perhaps we would be helping it pass!!!!

If you haven't commented as of yet and are going to do so ( suggest that you do) do it a form of suggestions to fix the proplems as well as your concerns or you will most likely just receive "a hearing on the bill has been cancelled notice." Start out your message with something like "understand that this hearings on this bill has been cancelled, however I would like to offer my input for future reference" Give them some good ideas and suggestions and it will be carried forward as this is worked on.
THe more comments they receive from individuals the better.

Thanks for making your comments as you can see it does make a difference.

Bill Chapin

 

[TCTrailrider]

2trackR,
I would like to thank you for keeping us informed. Your post alerted me to the issue. Fired off an Email to my Rep. apposing the bill. Many others did the same, looks like it had a positive impact. The early response shut it down before there was a chance to build momentum. Early is critical, thanks for your hard work.
Denny

 

[Fred T]

Thanks Jeremy

I got some emails back today as well like this one:
Dear Fred,



Thank you for your e-mail concerning HB 4353. I have decided not to take this bill up in Committee tomorrow morning. Because of the concerns expressed to me and other members of the Committee, the bill’s sponsor would like additional time to work on the language with interested groups and the DNR.



When the difficulties are resolved, a hearing will be held on HB 4353.



Thank you for your interest in this legislation.



Sincerely,



Tom Casperson

State Representative

108th District

 

[woodsracer369]

I got a simlar response, here is a copy of what I sent to the sponsor and local representatives.

Re: HB-5343
Mr. Hildenbrand,

The proposal of the subject bill and it’s contents has been brought to my attention. As an avid user of the current ORV trail systems available to the public in Michigan I must voice my concern with the bill being presented. I am opposed to the bill and will make my concerns known to my local representative(s). I feel that the widening of existing ORV trails to accept larger vehicles would endanger me and many others as it would allow for increased speed of current users and permit the use of larger vehicles that should more appropriately be used on forest roads with like sized vehicles. A better solution to the issue at hand would be to open select forest roads to ATVs of specific size or designation and leave the existing trail system regulations in place. This would address the concern for more/improved access for those requesting the change and ensure a continuation of safe and enjoyable recreation for current users. Thank you for taking the time to review my concerns and I appreciate your dedication and public service.



Sincerely,

Trevor Medley

 

[FLEM]

I sent my letter to my rep. yesterday (Stackoe dist44.) I'm glad to hear all the other responses to the bill hopefully In working with the enthusiast groups it will be better for all.

 

[Trailridin]

Ah, the Argo Bill rears its ugly head again! :bang: I also fired off an email and got a similar response:

Thank you for your recent correspondence regarding House Bill 5343. I appreciate you taking the time to contact my office with your concerns.

As you may know, I have asked that we not take up House Bill 5343 tomorrow in the House Conservation, Forestry and Outdoor Recreation Committee to allow further time to review this bill and make changes as needed.

Again, thank you for taking the time to contact me with your concerns.

Sincerely,

Dave Hildenbrand
State Representative
District 86

Dear Representative Hildenbrand,

As a tax-paying citizen of Michigan and an avid off-road motorcycle user, I am concerned with the proposed changes introduced in this bill. Specifically, the proposal changes the designated off-road vehicle trails from 50" to 60" in width to allow larger vehicles. A similar bill was introduced in recent years by Representative Valde Garcia to change trail width and was dropped after reviewing the impacts to the safety of off-road users and the economic impacts. Currently, the trail system includes ORV Trails that are maintained and designated for ORVs 50" or less in width and ORV Routes that are maintained at 72" in width and are designated for all other ORVs that are larger in size. This bill would change the designation of some 1500 miles of 50" width trail to 60" in width. The wider trail would increase ORV speeds on this trail, which winds through the State and National Forests, to unacceptable and unsafe levels. Furthermore, the widening of these existing trails would cost the taxpayers greatly. As an alternative to this bill, more 72" ORV route could be created and designated open to ORV use. Another alternative to this bill would be to reopen the forest roads of the lower peninsula to ORV use, as they have been designated "closed unless posted open" since 1991. This would open many thousands of miles of seasonal roads and two-track trails to ORV use, which would accomodate your constituents benifitting from this bill.

Thanks again for the heads-up 2TrakR!

 

[FLEM]

Just some props for my rep. I sent an e-mail to Rep. Stackhoe(dist.44) and he gave me a call today, and we talked a little about the bill and some possible alternatives, I suggested expanding the ORV routes which are already 72" and accessing the snowmobile trails for thes larger ORV's. he said there was quite a bit of public input just this week and that what made them retract the proposal, the initial proposal was thought to be a win,win deal until all the letters and e-mail came in objecting to it.

 

[KTM Mike]

I have not yet had a chance to send any emails, but another point worth clarifying is that while the big quad and Argo crowd wants WIDE trails, we dont. I suspect many non single track bike riders would assume we would LIKE wide trails - "gee...them skinny trails gotta be tuff to ride, so wider must be better for everyone". So I intend to point out that for a significant segement of the ORV community skinny trails are a good thing! To widen them is then a net loss to the Michigan trail system, not a gain. Also, I think it significant to stress how tiny of a minority the Argo/Rhino type vehicles are in the off road world - so why destroy a decent trail system for a small minority of users. My suggestions would then be as others have noted, to add BOTH skinny trail and more route, and re-open forest roads.

The fact that this bill has already been pulled really shows democracy in action!

 

[jim f.]

A really big THANK YOU, saved our butts.

 

[Smit-Dog]

Excellent letters guys! I'm going to find out why Garcia dropped this bill, and how it got picked up by Hildenbrand.

900cc Rhinos on the trail? :coocoo:

 

[2TrakR]

900cc Rhinos on the trail? :coocoo:

There are a number of "regular" ATVs that arlready exceed 800cc in displacement. Modifying the language used to define an ATV to include this larger displacement is not a bad idea.
Right now, kids can't legally ride an ATV (read the age rules stuff for specifics). Basically a 10 year old can't ride an ATV. But... An ATV is defined by one qualification as being under 500cc. Thus a 650cc quad is no longer an ATV, now it's just an ORV and that 10 year old is legal to ride on them.
The age categories need to be revisited and updated as well, that's another story.