DNR Letterhead

BILL ANALYSIS

BILL NUMBER:	HOUSE BILL 4411, AS INTRODUCED
TOPIC:	Allow operation of an ATV on a non designated trail by a person over 60 years of age or a person with a disability
SPONSOR:	Representative Joel Sheltrown
CO-SPONSORS:	None
COMMITTEE:	Tourism, Outdoor Recreation, and Natural Resources
Analysis Done:	March 26, 2009

POSITION

The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) opposes this legislation.

PROBLEM/BACKGROUND

Indiscriminate ORV/ATV use has damaged fragile ecosystems on both public and private lands. The DNR administers over 4 million acres of land for a variety of recreational pursuits and purposes. Wise use of these lands includes preserving natural features and wildlife habitat while encouraging a variety of recreational uses. Just as other users are limited in their activities to protect and conserve vital resources while minimizing conflicts with other activities, ORV/ATV users are restricted in where and how they may operate.

DESCRIPTION OF BILL

House Bill 4411 will allow unlimited ORV/ATV operation by individuals 60 years of age and older and by persons with disabilities, in many areas. This legislation will have a significant impact on many of the programs the Department manages.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

Pro

House Bill 4411 will relieve the above listed individuals from having to trailer their ORV/ATV to a designated trail, route, or use area.

Con

In 1991, the legislature designated, and the Natural Resources Commission implemented, a “closed unless posted open” regulation for ORVs/ATVs in Michigan’s Lower Peninsula. These regulations were enacted to protect sensitive areas that are susceptible to erosion. Additionally, they serve to separate conflicting uses, and control careless and insensitive riders. A trail network was created which covers over 3,100 miles with 73 percent of those miles on state forest lands. The effect of this bill could undermine the Department’s ability to control the creation of new trails and environmental damage.

This bill, as written, is unenforceable. It is impossible to determine when someone is heading to an existing trail or route. It is unclear what type of proof will be available to a law enforcement officer to determine if that person is disabled. The definition of a “person with a disability” in PA 220 of 1976 is extremely broad. Age may have no bearing on a person’s ability or disability. It would be difficult, if not impossible, (law requires helmets) to know if an ORV operator is less than 60 years of age or not, without direct law enforcement contact with all operators.

Current regulations already allow a person with a disability, and the proper certificate, to operate licensed ORVs/ATVs on forest roads on state lands whether posted open or not.

Mixing ORVs/ATVs and highway vehicles is unsafe, as ORVs/ATVs are not designed for operation on public roadways. The Michigan State Police, Office of Highway Safety Planning, reported that during 1997-2006, there were 2,638 ORV/ATV accidents on Michigan roadways resulting in 97 fatalities.

This bill allows a person to “operate an ATV on a non designated trail, route, or area, for pleasure or hunting” on state land without the prohibitions detailed in MCL 324.81133 (1) (e). The prohibitions in Section 81133 are essential to forest resource protection and long-term sustainability because they limit potential damage by ORVs/ATVs to soil and water, forest regeneration, wildlife habitat, biodiversity and sensitive areas.

Allowing unrestricted ORV/ATV access on state forest lands conflicts with PA 451 of 1994, Part 525, and with the principles of the forest certification systems through which the Department is accredited (SFI & FCS). Unrestricted ORV/ATV access would jeopardize the Department’s forest certification accreditation and the ability to market timber from state forest lands.

Additionally, allowing unrestricted access will impact wildlife movements and the quality of the hunting experience. Unrestricted use of ORVs on lands purchased with federal funds, or state restricted funds, may represent a diversion of those funds and could require approval of the federal agency.

FISCAL/ECONOMIC IMPACT

Are there revenue or budgetary implications in the bill to the --

(a) Department

Budgetary:

There will likely be budgetary implications based upon increased enforcement and resource restoration needs. The extent of these implications is unknown at this time.

Revenue:

None

Comments:

None

(b) State

Budgetary:

None

Revenue:

None

Comments:

None

(c) Local Government

Comments:

This legislation may increase ORV/ATV activity on public roads and other lands falling under jurisdiction of local units of government. This increased access may result in increased resource damage and the need for more law enforcement patrols.

OTHER STATE DEPARTMENTS

The Michigan State Police may be impacted due to increased complaints and accidents.

ANY OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION

This same legislation was proposed, which the Department opposed, in 2003 under HB 4492, in 2005 under HB 4659, and in 2008 under HB 5640.

This bill may have implications to private landowners resulting in trespass and property damage.

ADMINISTRATIVE RULES IMPACT

This legislation would supersede current Administrative Rules which regulate the use of wheeled motorized vehicles in these certain cases.

_______________________________

Rebecca A. Humphries

Director

_______________________________

Date

LED/WLD/FMFM