Definitions which define where and how ORV/ATVs may be operated include:

“Forest Road” Forest roads are hard surfaced roads, gravel and dirt roads, and other routes that can be traveled by a conventional 2-wheel drive vehicle designed for highway use (passenger car), including fire lanes and logging roads. “Forest Road” does NOT include any state, federal or county highways or roads. In general, forest road means a road OTHER THAN A COUNTY OR STATE ROAD that the family car can operate on without assistance. ORV license is required.

“Designated” means posted OPEN for ORV use with appropriate signs.

“Designated Route” means a forest or county road which has been signed for ORV use by the DNR. For ORVs of all sizes. Either ORV or Secretary of State conventional licensing is required.

“Designated Area” means an area that is signed for cross-country ORV use by the DNR. ORV license is required.

“Forest Trail” Forest trails are designated paths or ways that can only be traveled by vehicles that are less than 50" in width. ORV license is required.

 

Maybe you should realize there was a good bit of sarcasm in that post.....

 

MWQ, I have no problem with wheelies in areas where they can be done safely. I have been known to do them on occasion myself. The comment was there to show that we have some stupid ATV riders amongst us too... The end result is we all lost. Now we have to drive several hours to the nearest riding area. Trails are one thing. Streets are another, and will get you into trouble faster than anything I know...

I think a few late comers here are missing a few points. The argument on this thread stems from one individual, and the group he heads claiming to speak for ATV riders in MI. His actions and recommendations do not support that claim, and all anyone was asking was for the group to admit it.

A couple of us felt that given the limited budgets available, it would be more cost effective to build any new trails to a wider standard that would accomodate 2, 4 wheelers and RUVs. However this idea was a broken egg before it was even given a chance to sizzle, and it caused a firestorm of comment. We did not advocate highway based offroad vehicles anywhere. That comment stream was the result of some over exagerated what-ifs.

I think the root issue here is about misrepresentation and deceit. Not only does this group use false numbers, they even brag about actions taken that are detrimental to the ATV sport. That is what gets blood flowing... as I try to be open minded, but most importantly honest with eveyone. Which sadly, is not the case from the other perspective.

My hope is that out of all these record setting comments, people get a little more involved in their sport while they still have one to be involved in. Everyone needs to realize that if one of us dies, the other will follow soon after.... We cannot live without each other. I do not think we made any comments that suggest we didn't want to associate with 2 wheelers. As you know, I ride both... so I can see both sides... I also easily see that the advisory group is taking advantage of the larger ATV numbers in an attempt to further their causes... which is again what many are having a fit about. Contrary to what Dick may be saying, I still do not think punching out a 60" trail is any more costly than a single track. I believ it is cheaper, as I can use larger equipment rather than hand tools to get the job done.... He has a lot of convincing to do to change my mind on that one too...

 

http://www.michigandnr.com/legislati...20Analysis.htm
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/docume...HLA-5343-3.pdf

 

Bill forgot to include the caveat about State rules differing from those on Federal (USFS) land. USFS has rules that make it illegal to have an ATV on a posted cycle "only" trail. Bull Gap/Meadows have this on a couple sections; several on the west side with Holton/Horseshoe/Big-O. If you are riding by Mio, you might be on the Meadows or Bull Gap system, if so, the spots on Bull Gap are trivial (one by Mack Lake campground, one alternate loop on the south) and on the Meadows system it's effectively the whole MCCCT through the middle. Both of those systems have full ATV options, including parallel trails in the same area(s).

 

Jeramey- Am I reading more into this than you do or is there another pertinent section? I read the designation is a design and maintenance factor, not necessarily a limited use.
The intended use that controls the desired geometric design of the trail, and determines the subsequent maintenance parameters for the trail.

? There is only one Designed Use per trail or trail segment.

? Although the trail may be actively managed for more than one use, and numerous uses may be allowed, only one use is identified as the critical design driver. The Designed Use determines the technical specifications for the design, construction and maintenance of the trail or trail segment. For each Designed Use and applicable Trail Class, there is a corresponding set of nationally standardized technical specifications or Design Parameters.

 

BigSam -
Not sure what document you are referencing. State has one legal definition of ORV Trail and two maintenance specs. Legal is open to all ORVs less than 50"; maintenance has those trails maintained at 24" or 50". Effectively what Bill described previously.

USFS, however, has other rules in place. They effectively follow the State's specifications on trail widths (ie the maintenance spec) but have implemented additional rules that make those widths open to vehicles that fit the width. The local management Districts have opted to implement enforcement of the width so that an ATV becomes illegal on a cycle trail. Huron-Manistee National Forest, Horseshoe trail, is one example where they have done this as the whole trail is only cycles (street legal too, I believe). Big O trail as well. Cedar Creek and Little O are 50" ATV trails and open to both ATVs and cycles.

Or am I misunderstanding you?

 

Jeramey,
if the USFS has the right to adopt their own designation for what or what will not be operated on Federal lands, than exactly what is in place for the operator to understand that he/she is on USFS land and not State land?

 

Jeramey- The USFS site I was posting didn't mention about different districts having different rules. Did I miss something. The last thing I want to do is run into a Ranger who wants to confiscate my Quad or write a citation for something I didn't understand. I don't do well in those kind of situations. Is there another portion of the rules that are posted that I should be reading. Thank You

 

Bill -
Not aware of any major signs or similar that would alert you. The only trail that you would roll from State to USFS land is Rose City to the Meadows. They do have signs on the ground, though, like the one with the ATV with a slash through it (ie no ATV). The paperwork at each trail head that I've seen indicates what is allowed; same stuff is available at the ranger station(s).

BigSam -

I've not seen anything online that mentions this either. I don't know if the Mio District enforces this or not; the west side (Baldwin/White Cloud) were.