hearing that the michigan snowmobile/orv fund has to pay the game/fishing fund some ungodly amount of money, im waiting to see how much our orv stickers are gonna cost now. i bet they don't wait at all on this one. i see paying an increase this year for the sticker...

and being a fishermen, i see that going up as well, all across the board for that matter...hunt, fish, snow,orv,parks....

tim

 

ok, i found the article. i won't re-write it, i'll just post the stats.... (source) MICHIGAN OUTDOOR NEWS
great news paper by the way....[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/img]


tilte reads:
DNR to repay game,fish fund 2.4 million
total to repay= $2,456,000
from orv fund = 1.9 million
general fund= $556,000

acorriding to article, the 1.9 million has already been repaid. all this began with an audit that began in 1997.

 

Great 'need to know' information, Tim.

What is the official position of our atv orv board representative regarding this matter and more importantly; what state employees (legislators and/or natural resource personnel) were solidly behind making this happen (and what were their reasons?).

Thanks for bringing this up as I know your club works very closely with our representative. We all appreciate knowing exactly what positions are PUBLICLY stood up for and that our leaders are always willing to quickly point out who is responsible for the issues before us.

Thanks in advance,

John

 

quotes from article......

a federal audit of how the mdnr spends hunting and fishing lic. money claims the dnr mispent 2.4 million.

name that is in article....DNR Administrative Services Deputy Kelli Sobel.

if im not mistaken, i belive i met her at the november meeting up in lansing. nice lady, she's just doin her job[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/img]

also john, the club has nothing to do with what i just posted. yes, i went to that meeting as a matva member, but i also went as a plain ol' guy who wanted to see what these meetings were all about[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/img] it was pretty long. informational, but long. i will go again, just hard to do in the on a work night....

that was the first one i had been to as well, but i do belive that is when this all started to unfold. then a couple of weeks latrer, it was in the paper i get, then again on the last issue....

hope this helps, try going to www.michiganoutdoornews.com to see if you can find the article there....

see ya tim

 

yup, it is in there.... go to top news stories, first article there...... tim

 

First of all, I want to thank you for relaying your experience with this matter and will read the article today.

This lady that was at the orv board meeting.......was she the one who pointed out the 'obvious conflicts of interest' in regards to the manner in which the orv fund was operated before the current change; or was it the other gal?

Thought it was very interesting that the state was willing to hire two full-time employees to do trail maintenance on a particular trail system...............but a club leader (who are 'only' interested in getting the job done and 'not' the money) felt the state was somehow 'unfairly' COMPETING for the grant money availiable! Aaaaaaaaah, the spirit of cooperation!

I will read the article and get back to you; though I'm still not sure why nobody has a public opinion on such an important issue......................................

Thanks, Tim

John

 

I heard that the ORV stickers are supposed to be around $21 this year

 

from blackballed's quote above:

.........We all appreciate knowing exactly what positions are PUBLICLY stood up for and that our leaders are always willing to quickly point out who is responsible for the issues before us.........."

......"I'm still not sure why nobody has a public opinion on such an important issue"......................................



Again, thanks for bringing this related subject up, Big Bad Scrambler. What exactly is it going to take before riders in MI. decide that PUBLICLY discussing these matters might just force folks to listen to us?......................... 'Another' increase(?) or a bunch of predictable complaining with no focus on what's actually happening, who is confronting those responsible and 'EXACTLY' WHAT IS BEING SAID to the powers that be! (isn't there a difference between 'private' and 'public' representation?).

I can count the riders on one hand that have even had the kahunas to bring these kind of subjects up in the first place and half of them dropped out with 'conflicts of interest' when asked to take the next step toward getting the answers.

Does figuring out who's going to bring the weenies and hot cocoa to the next big get together; not leave much time for any 'serious' discussion? (or at least on matters we're 'allowed' to bring up?).

This would all be really funny if it weren't such a sad commentary on us all as caretakers of our sport and, more importantly, as independant thinking individuals with potentially something important to contribute as a 'group'.

John

 

Sorry, Tim; the article dropped off the page before I got a chance to read it.

I believe that one of the few 'good' things that may come out of any potential fee increase; might be that even a 'few' riders get more involved and start asking questions about how the system works.

At the present time, the riders in our state are being TOLD what our policy is going to be and not 'asked' by any stretch of the imagination. If someone can produce one instance in the past couple years where ANYBODY has been briefed before or after a state orv board meeting as to its consequential contents for our sport (or of any conversations between the 'powers that be')..............................please post that instance here.

But should we criticize those who should (cough) 'conciously' feel an obligation to seek out new ideas through (at the very least) posting the very issues themselves?

Or should we turn our focus more towards those who would refuse to (again, 'at least') let these issues be discussed in the first place?(see the 'no politics' rule that has been adapted by one club's website).

Isn't it kind of funny that a club would disavow 'anything to do' with a website (yet uses it as its main form of communication) and the 'strictly independent' owner of a website would want nothing to do with ANY questions regarding 'club' goals/beliefs or any political issues it is the sole representative of?

Am I 'missing' something here?

Thanks for the info, Tim

John

 

I was looking at some of the issues that our "Beloved"[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-tongue.gif[/img] governor Granholm was addressing. She wants to combine the EPA and DNR to form one agency. That is just what we need!!![img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-disgusted.gif[/img] The EPA will use the DNR to enforce their BS policys. Sorry, just had to vent!!