January 1 , 2008

Sound Legislation Approved; Limits Emissions From Stationary Snowmobile to 88-db

If all went as expected, the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Stationary Snowmobile Sound Test procedure, SAE J-2567 is now in effect on Michigan trails. The state legislature was expected to approve it before their Christmas break. Once signed by Gov. Jennifer Granholm, the law will go into effect immediately, and will be enforced on our trails during the rest of this snowmobile season. SAE J-2567, the Stationary Snowmobile Sound Test procedure, limits sound emission from a stationary snowmobile to 88-db.

This legislation will go a long way in helping clubs gain and continue access to private property. There are a small percentage of riders who have after-market exhausts that create excessive noise, and those few are creating a large perception problem for our recreation as a whole. Many of our trails pass by homes and wind through small communities. Excessive noise leads to the closure of those trails. This legislation does not affect racers in a race or racers on private property with permission from the landowner.

A Level We Can Live With

MSA has taken the stand that loud exhausts are a problem our recreation can no longer tolerate. Problems with excessive noise levels occur when snowmobilers modify the snowmobile exhaust system or substitute the factory system with an after-market racing exhaust. Manufacturers continue to work at a “cleaner and quieter” sled. Some riders out there are destroying the work that has been done by “piping” up their sleds. This is not good for the overall perception of our recreation, and is affecting our ability to get landowners to allow us to use their property.

Today’s sleds will pass SAEJ-2567. However, those sleds whose riders insist on using after-market products that increase the noise will not. Since I last wrote about the sound test in September, the MSA office has received a lot of calls asking about specifics and asking how someone can find out if their sled would pass the test. Anyone wanting to know if their sled meets the new requirements can simply go to their local police or sheriffs department. The decibel meter that will be used to check sleds is already used to measure boats and off-road ATVs and motorcycles.

2004 SAE J2567 stationary test overview: The sound meter microphone is placed 4 feet above the ground, inline with the exhaust outlet/center point of multiple exhaust outlets, on the side of the snowmobile toward which the exhaust is directed, 4 meters distance from the snowmobile longitudinal centerline. The operator holds the brake during the test, starts and runs the engine up to normal operating temperature, then slowly opens the throttle until a steady 3,750 to 4,000 rpm is achieved for not less than 4 seconds. The test is immediately repeated and the two readings averaged. This test was designed to test snowmobile noise emitted from the exhaust and engine system only. It is a stationary test; it does not test track noise. The stationary test does not correlate to any pass-by test. The test was designed to remove excessively loud snowmobiles from the trail, particularly those that have modified exhausts.

This test has been accepted by SAE and can be used on a national and international level.  Wisconsin has already approved the 88-db limit and many other states are actively seeking legislation.

Some Legislative Concerns

Legislators were originally concerned that there wasn’t any wiggle room for older sleds. Well, let me say all stock sleds dating back to 1982 will pass this sound test. All four-strokes measure well below 76-db and all two-strokes measure below 84-db. This is why the 88 level was approved. These older sleds will pass the sound test. If you have a sled that doesn’t meet these levels, then you have a defective exhaust that needs to be fixed.

MSA as well as the International Manufacturers Association (ISMA) continues to back an 88-db noise level on new machines. It is a level the industry can live with and something that all associations should be pushing. The manufacturers, along with suppliers and others, have conducted hundreds of sound tests on various aged snowmobiles to determine the 88-db limit. Additional tests recently conducted in Houghton show that using SAE J-2567 – 88-db level – will remove excessively loud snowmobiles from riding areas and trails in Michigan.

Take Note!

MSA continues to work on your behalf, and will keep you informed regarding future legislation. We are working to increase trail funding, and this will mean an increase in sled registration and trail permit costs. We will keep you informed. Please realize these increases are necessary to keep the top-notch trail system we have. If we don’t find a way to increase funding for the snowmobile program, services will decrease. In 2008, MSA will be working on furthering both the concept of permanent trails and legislation for a two-tier registration system.

November 8, 2007

November 1, 2007

To Groom or Not to Groom?
         That’s a Good Question ...

by Bill Manson

  Over the past couple of months, I’ve discussed an ongoing issue that our grant sponsors have with the 2007-08 Grant Sponsor Handbook. Last month I asked, “Will we have groomed trails this season?” Well, here we are a month later and that question remains unanswered.

Since last month’s writing, there has been another meeting between the Snowmobile Advisory Committee (SAC), the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) State Trails Coordinator Jim Radabaugh and DNR Trails Unit Manager Steve DeBrabander. Some of the issues grant sponsors have with the Handbook have been resolved, while others remain unsettled. We were promised another addendum (the second) would be released on Wednesday, Oct. 10. As of this writing, we haven’t received it. We thought we were making progress, but to date haven’t seen anything in writing.

Remember, our grant sponsors’ biggest issues involved aspects of equipment funding outlined in the Handbook.

Some Movement
in the Right Direction

One of their biggest concerns was whether the grant program was truly 100 percent funded if the DNR was allowed to put a cap on equipment purchases. We feel we have worked out this issue and now have a truly 100 percent program funded equipment purchase program in place. We have agreed that there won’t be caps on purchases and that the program will be more tailored to meet the needs of a specific snow area.

The DNR has agreed to work with grant sponsors to tailor the program, which will allow the purchase of pieces of equipment that have been developed for high snow areas. That equipment will be paid for out of the snowmobile program, 100 percent. There will no longer be a $150,000 cap. Clubs will no longer have to go to the bank and borrow money or raise funds to offset the cost.

With that said, understand that someone in a lower snow area may not meet the requirements for the purchase of the same piece of equipment being purchased for the higher snow area.

 The entire idea of 100 percent program funded equipment was to make it so grant sponsors didn’t have to borrow money. The entire intent of the 100 percent program funded equipment was to offset costs and make it easier on the volunteers who maintain and groom our trails to maintain and groom our trails, not raise funds.

The issue grant sponsors had regarding emergency repairs, required paper work and signed approval, has also been resolved. We feel we have come up with language that is suitable to our grant sponsors. It will allow them to get emergency equipment repaired, chase the paper work after the repair and still get that repair paid for through the snowmobile program. This is the way we had always intended this part of the program to be. Equipment needs to be repaired and out on the trail when it is needed, not only after approvals are secured and paper work completed.

Previously Purchased Equipment Still an Issue

The issue that remains a sticking point with our grant sponsors involves previously purchased equipment and previously cost-shared equipment.

Many grant sponsors still owe money on previously purchased equipment; some even owe more than the equipment is worth. Other grant sponsors have paid off this equipment through fundraisers.

 As written, the Handbook limits uses of state cost-shared funds when that equipment is traded in. Limits would not allow them to pay off loans with cost-shared funds. Grant sponsors would also have to provide written documentation on use of those cost-shared funds — funds that in most cases were matched by funds paid out of the grant sponsors’ own pockets (loans and fundraisers).

 Grant sponsors have been told, on more than one occasion, that equipment five years or older belonged to them. We agreed three years ago (when this entire process started), that our grant sponsors needed to get something for their “sweat equity,” the work they put into the equipment and the fundraisers held to purchase the equipment.

We believe, and thought we had an agreement with the DNR, that we should put any trade-in funds back into our grant sponsors’ hands.

I think it’s important to point out that Michigan’s trails, the Grant Sponsor Handbook and the 100 percent equipment funded program all began at the ground level — with our grant sponsors, the people out there working on our trail system. It is through their passion and hard work that Michigan can boast of the best trails in the nation. It was that passion that led to the need for more equipment and a better program. 

Each one of the 65 grant sponsors in Michigan works hard to make their trails the best they can be. They are going out day after day and working the trails. At the very least, the program, which snowmobilers fund, should clean up the debt taken on for the equipment used to do that. Grant sponsors should get some of their investment back.

If Things Weren’t
Bad Enough

Yet another problem in the mix is the lack of an approved state budget. As we all know, we still don’t have an approved state budget in place. In a letter from Jim Wood of DNR Grants Management, dated Oct. 10, 2007, it states, “At this time, we are operating under a one-month continuation budget ... The continuation budget does not include funding for issuing new grants. Until the state legislature appropriates sufficient funding for the 2007-08 fiscal year, the grants will remain on hold.”

With all of this seemingly bad news, as a snowmobiler, you’re probably asking, “What now?” Well, presently, MSA is asking every one of our grant sponsors in the state if the remaining issues, regarding old equipment and new equipment are not resolved, will they sign their grant sponsor’s contract this year?

What do I think? I think most of our Northern-lower Michigan and Eastern Upper Peninsula grant holders will not sign their new contracts as written. Those contracts ask the grant sponsors to give up the right to get any money on previously purchased equipment back. Many would be left with no way to recoup funds they have already put toward loans taken out on that equipment.

After speaking with the grant sponsors, MSA intends on asking Natural Resources Commission (NRC) Chairman Keith J. Charters for a meeting and intervention on this matter.

Worse Case/Best Case

The worse case scenario as I see it is Michigan will not have 100 percent of our snowmobile trails signed and groomed during the 2007-08 season. If nothing changes, several of our state’s grant sponsors will not sign their contracts and will not be signing and grooming trails. Trails you ride and have ridden for years will not be signed, maintained or groomed.

The best case scenario would be for the NRC to step in and ask the director of the DNR to fix this issue. If that doesn’t happen soon, MSA is prepared to ask all snowmobilers to call Gov. Jennifer Granholm’s office, as well as their state legislators’ offices, asking for action.

The last thing Michigan needs right now is to lose a billion dollar industry because of what seems to be a game of semantics.

This is not state money we’re talking about. This is snowmobilers’ money — your money that is merely administered by the DNR.

October 1, 2007

Will We Have Groomed Trails This Season?
by Bill Manson
 

Last month, I explained an ongoing issue that our grant sponsors had with the 2007-08 Grant Sponsor Handbook. I explained that after two meetings with the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), we were waiting on an addendum to address some of the issues of concern.

Since then, the DNR has published an addendum to the 2007-08 Grant Sponsor Handbook. It is a mere six pages long and came out Sept.7, just four days before my first (previously scheduled) annual meeting with grant sponsors. Let me first say, the DNR did not get the addendum out in a timely fashion, as promised during our two previous meetings.

With the six page document in hand, I began meeting with grant sponsors on Sept. 11 and I can tell you, I’m not getting a “warm and fuzzy feeling” from any of those volunteers who put long hours into maintaining and grooming over 6,000 miles of trails in Michigan.

Simply put, grant sponsors are still not happy. I’m hearing that they just don’t like the addendum. While the DNR addressed the issues grant sponsors had with the original Handbook, they didn’t solve any of the problems associated with them. Many feel that all their feedback, ideas and discussions were not even taken into account within the addendum.

They are telling me it looks like the DNR said okay this is the best we can do; now you have to compromise. If that’s the best they can do, will the grant sponsors sign grant applications? Will we have groomed trails this winter?

To date, I have held three meetings with those dedicated volunteers, and every meeting got longer and more and more questions were asked. The bottom line is I think they will sign, but there still needs to be a lot of work — both changes in the Handbook and in the relationship between grant sponsors and the DNR. There needs to be some healing in an already strained relationship.

By putting some of the stuff in the Handbook that they did, the DNR has made an already restless crowd even more worried about trust issues. The future really is uncertain.

Grant sponsors biggest concerns involved aspects of equipment funding outlined in the Handbook.

Is It Truly 100 Percent Program Funded?

What the DNR is calling 100 percent snowmobile program funded equipment is still one of the biggest issues grant sponsors have. The DNR calls the purchase of equipment 100 percent program funded, yet they are placing a cap on the maximum amount of money that can be spent on that equipment. The addendum reads, “The Department will establish a maximum reimbursement amount for equipment.” Last year’s equipment cap was set at $150,000. They haven’t set the cap this year, but I don’t see it being any higher.

Grant sponsors are pointing out that some equipment purchased for use in heavy snow areas has come in above that cap. They are saying if equipment ranges from $150,000 to $165,000, and they purchase something over the cap, then equipment is not 100 percent program funded. When there is a cap, and the equipment costs more, it means the grant sponsors are still going back to the bank and borrowing money to make up for the shortfall. Also, when the equipment is traded in after five years (as outlined in the Handbook), the grant sponsors will not be reimbursed for the portion they paid for. 

 The entire idea of 100 percent program funded equipment was to make it so grant sponsors didn’t have to borrow money. The entire intent of the 100 percent program funded equipment was to offset costs and make it easier on the volunteers who maintain and groom our trails to maintain and groom our trails, not raise funds.

What Is a Grant Supported Item?

Another issue, causing some heartburn with our grant sponsors, involves previously purchased equipment five years old or older. In the past, the DNR has said that after five years equipment belongs to the grant sponsor. If sold or traded in, the funds belong to the grant sponsor. Now the Handbook states that if equipment is sold the amount that was “cost-shared” can only be spent a certain way.

During both meetings held with the DNR, grant sponsors were told that after five years equipment would be theirs. Now the DNR is changing the rules. The Handbook now states that if the equipment was purchased through a cost-share, the grant sponsor has to justify (in writing, with supported documentation) what they are going to do with the cost-share portion. For example, if the equipment was purchased under a 60 percent cost-share, the grant sponsor now has to explain what is being done with 60 percent of the value of that equipment when sold.

Here’s the kicker, those cost-shared funds can only be spent on “grant supported items.” Grant supported items include trail grooming, repair and other maintenance. These are things that grant sponsors are already reimbursed for.

As it reads, they can’t pay off loans, buy a chain saw or trailer for signing and brushing or even build a pole barn with those cost-shared funds.

What Happens When Equipment Breaks Down?

After literally four hours of arguing about major repair issues, someone finally said, if you have to get emergency repairs, get them done and we will chase the paper work later. Everyone thought, finally, a smart move. We thought we had the major repair issue satisfied, but that’s not what was written in the DNR’s addendum.

In the past, grant sponsors couldn’t touch their equipment until they had a signed grant addendum in hand. Consider this, equipment breaks down on a Friday night the DNR field contact isn’t going to be in the office until Monday. When the grant sponsor finally gets a hold of that contact the required paper work starts. It has to go through Lansing and then goes to the Grants Division. Finally approved, the grant sponsor can now get the equipment fixed. The best case scenario, it’s a whole week before they can start working on it. Meanwhile, the equipment is not on the trails, doing what it was purchased for. Know this; grant sponsors have been denied funds for major equipment repairs because this process wasn’t followed.

The addendum was supposed to address this issue and give grant sponsors the latitude to get the equipment fixed, and chase the paper work later.

Well, the addendum addresses the issue by defining an “emergency” major repair.

As written, an emergency is, “A sudden and unexpected situation beyond the control of the department, agency or agent that requires immediate action to protect the health, welfare or safety of individuals; to protect public property from damage or loss; or to prevent or minimize serious disruption in government services.” I ask you, where in that statement does it say anything about grooming, the task of our grant sponsors? Also, in bold print it states repairs completed without prior DNR approval are at the grant sponsor’s own risk. They must meet with DNR approval before any reimbursement is made. That statement puts us right back where we started.

What’s Next?

At the time of this writing, I don’t know if changes will be made and issues addressed. It’s now up to the grant sponsors to decide among themselves if they can live with it or if they will demand more changes. Two years ago, all those involved in the snowmobile program agreed (including the DNR), the program in Michigan is big enough that it should pay for expenses that occur. Grant sponsors shouldn’t have to raise funds or take out loans. I don’t really think the Handbook or the addendum is going to make that happen. We are still not at that 100-percent funding level.

Perhaps even more important for all MSA members and riders in Michigan to know, is that this snow year is especially going to be a tough one financially — all three of the snowmobile program’s funding sources were down last year.

•  Trail permits were down 30,000.

•  Registrations were down 20 percent.

•  Gas tax funds were down because the cost of gas is so high, people aren’t traveling as much.

This all means there is less money coming into the snowmobile program, and because of this, we didn’t purchase $1.5 million worth of equipment during the program’s last fiscal year (Oct. 1 through Sept. 30). We forcibly put that money into this year’s program, knowing that because our three funding sources were down, we would need it to maintain the program. We wanted a fully-funded program in 2008. What will the 2009 fiscal year look like for the snowmobile program? That’s a great question; maybe the DNR can answer that one. e

September 1, 2007

Snowmobile Advisory Committee Acting as Mediator Between Grant Sponsors and Department of Natural Resources
 by Bill Manson
 

 The Michigan Snowmobile Advisory Committee (SAC) has been acting as a mediator between the state’s grant sponsors, the people who maintain and groom our trails, and the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), the state agency that administers the snowmobile program. It is our hope that by the time you read this article, problems between the two parties involving the 2008 Grant Sponsor Handbook will have been resolved and trail maintenance is set to begin.

 However, MSA feels it is important that you the snowmobiler, the person paying the user fee to maintain the trails, should be aware of what it going on. If the problem is not resolved, we may be asking you to contact your legislator. The 2007-08 snowmobile season depends on the problem being resolved; the grant sponsors (those volunteers who maintain the trails) have made that very clear. Many of them have gone on record saying that if they are forced to adhere to the 2008 Handbook, they will not be grooming trails this season.

 The issue between the two began early this summer when the 2008 Grant Sponsor Handbook was released. The Handbook included many issues that the grant sponsors didn’t agree with, and the SAC was asked to mediate between the two and address the issues. It should be noted that MSA and SAC suggested changes to the 2008 Grant Sponsor Handbook before it was released. One sentence in the book was changed before grant sponsors received it.

 Specific Issues of Concern

Major issues of concern by the grant sponsors were changes in the snowmobile grooming equipment grant, requiring the purchase of John Deere equipment and a 45-day delayed payment to the grant sponsors.

 1. Changes in the snowmobile grooming equipment grant

Issues of great concern to grant sponsors were the cost share and program percentage recovery, trade in value of equipment, equipment status after five years from purchase, a definition of base equipment specification, establishing a level of cost share for new equipment and defining equipment replacement criteria and schedules.

 As of this writing, the group has agreed that 100-percent funded equipment must be traded-in when a new grant is issued to replace this piece of equipment.

 Major equipment repair will continue to be funded at 75 percent DNR, 25 percent grant sponsor with the grant sponsor paying the first $1,000

 We are also providing base equipment specifications for new equipment. These specifications will provide details on the variables of vehicles with tracks or wheels and with or without drags. Grant sponsors want a base price for reimbursement.

 Any equipment enhancements added by the grant sponsor that are above the base equipment specifications will be paid for by the grant sponsor and be considered part of the value of the equipment at the time of trade–in/sale and will go toward the purchase of the next groomer.  Some items that are removable and are paid for by the grant sponsor may be removed prior to trade-in/sale.

 2. The John Deere issue

As written, grant sponsors would be required to consider John Deere equipment when making new equipment purchases.

 In response, SAC presented the DNR with a five-page document as to why John Deere may not work in a certain area. Currently, 21 grant sponsors use John Deere equipment. We have been told that this requirement was made because the state has a contract with the company and they must be considered in all bids when state funds are being used. The Attorney General’s office has said that because there is a caveat to opt out of this, it is legal. Grant sponsors maintain the wording can be interrupted to mean that a quote is needed from John Deere adding another issue that sponsors have to address when purchasing. The DNR has proposed that a check box be added to the form that when checked says that the sponsor has considered John Deere, but can’t use them based on reasons such as too much snow, too small of bridges, weight,  etc.

 3. The 45-day payment delay

As written there would be a 45-day delay in reimbursement to grant sponsors.

 In response, the DNR explained that this was a requirement of the Executive Directives and current contract agreements are subject to this requirement.  Grant sponsors have been told that when the Grants Office writes the snowmobile grants for fiscal year 2008, language will be added for a 30-day payment requirement to alleviate this concern.

 Some of the other issues being looked at include, requiring trail inspections with both grant sponsor and field contact, listing landowners as additional insurers, reimbursement for grooming done after March 31, grant sponsor administration costs, trail proposals and tracking and the appeal process for the grant sponsors.

 Trying to Work it Out

Meetings were held between the two parties in both June and July. As of the writing of this column another meeting was scheduled in August. It has been made clear to us that the Natural Resources commission and top officials with the DNR want to make sure that the grant sponsors are happy.

 At this time, MSA is very confident that the SAC can work with the two parties and get these issues worked out. MSA has advised all state grant sponsors to sign grant applications for the 2007-08 season.

 The number one goal of the SAC and MSA during this mediation has been to make sure grant sponsors are happy -- happy grant sponsors mean great trails!

September 1, 2007

 Sound Legislation Expected to be Approved
by Bill Manson

Before any snowmobiler hits the trails in Michigan on Dec. 1, MSA would like them to check their exhaust. Approval was expected this summer on legislation that would put the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Stationary Snowmobile Sound Test procedure, SAE J-2567 into affect this snowmobile season. SAE J-2567, the Stationary Snowmobile Sound Test procedure, limits sound emission from a stationary snowmobile to 88-db.

 Today’s sleds will pass SAEJ-2567. However, those sleds whose riders insist on using after-market products that increase the noise will not. Those not adhering to these levels will be ticketed by law enforcement officials. Make no mistake, the procedure to check sleds out on the trails is in place and those not adhering to the 88-db will receive a ticket.

 SAE J-2567, the Stationary Snowmobile Sound Test procedure, was developed in response to a request to develop a stationary sound test for snowmobiles for enforcement purposes. This test was designed to test snowmobile noise emitted from the exhaust and engine system only. It is a stationary test, it does not test track noise. The stationary test does not correlate to any pass-by test. The test was designed to remove excessively loud snowmobiles from the trail, in particular those that have modified exhaust

This test has been accepted by SAE and can be used on a national and international level.  Wisconsin has already approved the 88-db limit and many other states are actively seeking legislation.

 MSA has taken the stand that loud exhausts are a problem our recreation can no longer tolerate. Problems with excessive noise levels occur when snowmobilers modify the snowmobile exhaust system or substitute the factory system with an after-market racing exhaust. Manufacturers continue to work at a “cleaner and quieter” sled. Some riders out there are destroying the work that has been done by “piping” up their sleds. This is not good for the overall perception of our recreation, and is affecting our ability to get landowners to allow us to use there property.

 MSA as well as the International Manufactures Association (ISMA) continues to back an 88db noise level on new machines. It is a level the industry can live with and something that all associations should be pushing. The manufacturers, along with suppliers and others have conducted hundreds of sound test on various age snowmobiles to determine the 88-dB limit. Additional tests recently conducted in Houghton; show that using SAE J-2567 – 88db level – will remove excessively loud snowmobiles from riding areas and trails in Michigan.

DNR Director’s Approval of Mullett Lake Trail Access Comes with Restrictions
by Bill Manson

Heeding concerns voiced by a few landowners with homes on Mullett Lake, the DNR decided to restrict all snowmobile traffic from midnight to 8 a.m., making the 12-mile tract Michigan’s only trail area not opened 24 hours per day.

 MSA would like to take this opportunity to applaud the Thursday, Sept. 7 order from Rebecca A. Humphries, director of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR) that provides final state approval for snowmobiling near Mullett Lake. The trail opening does address MSA’s decade-long effort to re-connect the Gaylord-to-Cheboygan Trail. The director’s order followed months of study and public input that resulted in a restriction of hours and a 35-mph speed limit along the 12-mile stretch.  

For more than 10 years, we have tried to find a solution to this problem. We commend the DNR for providing relief to snowmobilers, and Jennifer Granholm’s administration for supporting Michigan’s economy. The DNR’s action to establish a contiguous trail system is supported by business chambers and hundreds of small business owners in that area.  

Trail Opening Comes With Restrictions

However, everyone must still address the fundamental issue of safety due to the restriction of hours that were tied to that order. Heeding concerns voiced by few landowners with homes on Mullett Lake, the DNR decided to restrict all snowmobile traffic from midnight to 8 a.m. making the 12-mile tract Michigan’s only trail area not opened 24 hours per day. 

Those riders not past Mullett Lake by midnight will have two dangerous paths from which to choose — the lake or the highway. Unknown freezing conditions and traffic on Highway 27 make either route very dangerous, especially at night. Lack of a feasible alternative route is what necessitated opening the trail. 

We have no problem with the speed limit, but we are very concerned about the traffic restriction from midnight to 8 a.m. The DNR tried to appease 26 landowners who are apparently going to file a lawsuit anyway. We believe this was the wrong move because it could force riders to take a dangerous path while riding at night. 

We May Not Like It, But We Must Follow It

When Michigan’s snowmobile season officially begins statewide Dec. 1, DNR law enforcement officials will be looking for the snowmobilers driving this trail to comply with the posted speed limit and restrictions on the hours of operation. They will be coordinating enforcement efforts in the area with local law enforcement agencies. Citations will be written to those not following those restrictions. 

As MSA members and snowmobilers, we all need to make sure that we are good stewards of the land and trail. We have to adhere to these restrictions and make sure all snowmobilers adhere to them. Do we agree with them? NO! But they are now a fact of life on that section of trail, and we have to abide by them. I can guarantee that law enforcement will be out in full force on that trail, and tickets will be written to those who don’t follow these restrictions. 

Also, remember there are some homeowners in that area who still strongly oppose any motorized use of that public land. Rest assured they will be out there, more than likely taking notes and pictures for future stands against our use of that public land. 

The DNR plans to evaluate the use of snowmobiles on this segment of trail, including compliance with these restrictions, in 2008, following two full seasons of snowmobile use. We don’t need landowners, who are already in opposition of this, to denote every infraction we make. 

For Their Efforts

Over the past several months, MSA has met privately with Governor Granholm’s staff to discuss the importance of snowmobiling in this state. Those discussions led to larger meetings with NRC officials and DNR staff that outlined the negative effects of having no available trail in this area, broken promises resulting in a failed policy from previous years, and stalled efforts to bring recreational and economic benefits to northern Michigan. We recognized that the Governor  inherited this problem, and it took some time to educate and inform the administration about it’s history.  Over time, MSA coordinated communication from a multitude of business owners and snowmobilers, and the administration ultimately acknowledged there was merit to our case. 

Regarding the DNR’s order to allow snowmobilers on that section of trail, Governor Granholm said, “Snowmobiling brings a huge economic boost to the small businesses in northern Michigan each winter. Michigan is a Mecca for outdoor recreation and tourism, and this trail will add a key link in this region of the state to help tourism grow there.”   

There were also some key State legislators on both sides of aisle who provided critical support to the MSA in getting this done, and we would like to thank them for their efforts and continued support. On the Democratic side of the aisle, MSA would like to thank Matthew Gillard-Alpena and Gary McDowell-Rudyard. 

On the Republican side of the aisle, MSA would like to thank Rep. Kevin Elsenheimer-Bellaire, Sen. Tony Stamas- Midland and Sen. Jason Allen-Traverse City.  Without the efforts of these community leaders, this would not have been possible. 

A Brief History

Problems with this trail began in 1997 when the DNR purchased a railroad grade from Gaylord to Cheboygan. This purchase was done through negotiations with snowmobilers regarding the snowmobile trail that would run along the grade. There are homes along Mullet Lake that the trail would run close to, and the homeowners were not happy about the trail. Remember, it is not their property, but state property, that we are talking about. Well, those homeowners were threatening to sue and hold up the purchase of the property so the DNR asked snowmobilers to give up the right to be on the 12 miles running along Mullet Lake, if the department could give snowmobilers an alternative route.

We agreed on one condition — they had to provide us with an alternative route. The land was purchased and through the trust fund board, a Director’s Order was placed on it banning motorized vehicles from the 12 miles. The promise was made to find us an alternative trail.

Literally, dozens of alternatives and reroutes have been looked at, considered and either turned down by state officials or involve too many stumbling blocks — like crossing multiple pieces of private property where landowner permission would need to be secured. Snowmobilers and clubs in that area have been met by the same issues since trying to come up with an alternative back when the issue began in 1997. The only sacrifices that have been made have been made on the part of snowmobilers who can’t get from Gaylord to Cheboygan.

The DNR Director’s order was the final step of a three-step process. In June 2006, the DNR’s Trust Fund Board voted to rescind language banning motorized use of the trail, and then the DNR held public hearings to gather testimony. Mullett Lake trail access upholds the State’s promise made over 10 years ago to connect the trail for snowmobile use.

 Other Concerns

MSA would like to go on record as being especially concerned about the safety of approximately 100,000 out-of-state riders who may not be aware of the restriction of hours near Mullett Lake. It’s likely that riders will begin south of Mullett Lake headed for an overnight stopping point in the northern Lower or Upper Peninsula. Again, those riders not past Mullett Lake by midnight will have two dangerous paths from which to choose — the lake or the highway. Unknown freezing conditions and traffic on Highway 27 make either route very dangerous, especially at night. Lack of a feasible alternative route is what necessitated opening the trail.

 The small group of Mullett Lake homeowners continues to threaten legal action against the state for opening the trail to snowmobiles. Some of them have recently suggested their property rights are being hindered because the DNR asked them to remove personal property from the trail.

 For years the Mullett Lake homeowners have used the state-owned trail as personal storage sites for docks, boat trailers and lawn furniture. Some have even built permanent structures on the trail’s right of way. It’s rather obvious why they don’t want us to use the trail. Snowmobilers just want to use state-owned land for riding.

 Although we applaud the order to rescind, we fear that the DNR has opened a Pandora’s Box. We don’t want to see speed limits and hours of operation on any trails, and we are hoping that they didn’t set a dangerous precedent by putting them on this section of trail.

 Finally, I can’t stress enough how important it is that all snowmobilers adhere to both the speed limit and hours of operation on that trail. We may not agree with them. We may not like them, but we must follow them. Don’t let those opposed to our use of this public land use our actions against us. We need to continue to be good stewards of the land and trail.  

    Snowmobile trails in Michigan are open from December 1^st through March 31^st.

The Michigan Snowmobile Association is a volunteer organization dedicated to the
improvement of the sport of snowmobiling in Michigan.