$10 Fee increase for Michigan Trail Pass next year
- Thread starter 440_chazz
- Start date
A couple points to consider -- and I don't know the answers, maybe somebody here does. But, which state has more registered sleds? Or more importantly, which state system gets more traffic? Michigan gets riders from Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, and who knows where else.
Again, I don't know the answers, just threw it out there to point out that the number of miles in a trail system don't tell the whole story -- I think how much they're used (i.e., traffic) is a pretty important factor. Consider too, that when there are more miles of trails the traffic gets spread out more -- possibly lessening the need to groom as often.
Just trying to raise points for discussion....not trying to be argumentative.
Probably more sleds registered in WI simply because it is very easy to do & abuse & you don't need to live in WI to register. I would not use WI as an example for registered sleds won't reveal much also reduces number of WI trail permits sold. WI with wide spread snow cover spreads riders out over entire state & you will see immediate reduction of northern WI & UP sled traffic. They will ride close to home if they can. When UP only place with good snow also counter productive too many people cramed into too few trails & most riders stay in popular areas & don't spread out. That is when the trail permit cost bitchin really starts no possible way for groomers to keep up with traffic & bang for buck is questioned. Happens every year & will again this year on JD Snow Central. Just the way of it.
skiroule
Well-known member
Hey Russ - I'm from "who knows where else". At least you also left out Iowa
Still being an active downhill skier, what I find interesting about this thread is that I hear the same debate every year over the price of lift tickets. To hear the outcry, you'd think the ticket was the biggest payout.
I can't say for sure but it seems like most of the concentrated riding areas in the U.P. are groomed almost continuously. A lot of the areas I ride in MN are never groomed more than once a week. There simply isn't the funds to do so. Smooth trails cost money.
chevytaHOE5674
New member
I'm only purchasing permits for 2 of my sleds this year and am either not going to ride the other 2 or will swap windshields if I do. Depending on snow conditions I will probably ride Zero miles of groomed trails this season, but it will still cost me 90 bucks just to put them on the trail legally.
They need to come up with some other rules for the folks who don't ride the groomed trails.
And I have talked to plenty of out of staters that won't be coming up for their yearly 1-3 day trip. So the local businesses in town (who desperately need the business) will be loosing out.
They need to come up with some other rules for the folks who don't ride the groomed trails.
And I have talked to plenty of out of staters that won't be coming up for their yearly 1-3 day trip. So the local businesses in town (who desperately need the business) will be loosing out.
lesledhead
New member
Like I said, we all have our opinions and I have no qualms with that. To those that say "Don't like it, stay home" you are not looking at the entire picture. If too many people "Don't like it and stay home" your revenue for the permit program will go down. And then guess what, the permit goes up again and again.
And as far as self-serving with Indiana taxes being eliminated on toys, the last I checked we don't manufacture snowmobiles or ATV's in Indiana. We make a ton of RV's, but those are taxed just like any other state and I don't have a problem with that. My point is if you lower the tax, you'll get more people to go along with it and you'll get more revenue. I'm by no means trying to turn this thread into a tax debate, just showing how I see this program going.
There are many, many of you that can afford to enjoy the sport any way you see fit, and I think that is awesome. You have to realize that the "have-nots" are slowly being pushed out. $10 dollars at a time.
Tony
And as far as self-serving with Indiana taxes being eliminated on toys, the last I checked we don't manufacture snowmobiles or ATV's in Indiana. We make a ton of RV's, but those are taxed just like any other state and I don't have a problem with that. My point is if you lower the tax, you'll get more people to go along with it and you'll get more revenue. I'm by no means trying to turn this thread into a tax debate, just showing how I see this program going.
There are many, many of you that can afford to enjoy the sport any way you see fit, and I think that is awesome. You have to realize that the "have-nots" are slowly being pushed out. $10 dollars at a time.
Tony
chevytaHOE5674
New member
Bingo. I don't have "multi thousand dollar" sleds, most I've paid for a sled is 600 or 700 bucks and I got 2 of them for less than 100 bucks. I don't have a 6k trailer, I have an old 2 place open trailer that I picked up for 50 bucks. I got into snowmobiling because it was something to do during the long winter that was somewhat cheap and very fun. Slowly it has just about priced me out of the game, with the increased registration and trail permit fees, increased fuel and parts cost, etc...
If you have 25k to spend on snowmobile gear then good for you. But there are many many many of us that don't.
Whitedust -- Agreed. You put it better than I did.
Skiroule -- Sorry, wasn't trying to leave out our friends in Minnesnowta (or Iowa, for that matter). I was just thinking of our immediate neighboring states.
Personally, I think for the most part Michigan does a pretty darn good job of grooming. Yeah, it sucks the way permits have gone up, but really, what hasn't gone up? And the trails are far better than they were when I first started riding in the mid-90's. It seems like back then rough trails were the norm, now they're more the exception. I will say though, that I have the benefit of being able to ride during the week, I rarely ride weekends (usually only the MSA Ride-In weekend). So, not having a really accurate picture of weekend trail conditions, maybe my assessment is a bit skewed.
Skiroule -- Sorry, wasn't trying to leave out our friends in Minnesnowta (or Iowa, for that matter). I was just thinking of our immediate neighboring states.
Personally, I think for the most part Michigan does a pretty darn good job of grooming. Yeah, it sucks the way permits have gone up, but really, what hasn't gone up? And the trails are far better than they were when I first started riding in the mid-90's. It seems like back then rough trails were the norm, now they're more the exception. I will say though, that I have the benefit of being able to ride during the week, I rarely ride weekends (usually only the MSA Ride-In weekend). So, not having a really accurate picture of weekend trail conditions, maybe my assessment is a bit skewed.
Last edited:
polarisrider1
New member
I still have not bought my Michigan permit. In the Irons Area I have been pulled over for a sticker check many times while riding ditches and forest roads. Aren't the permits for trails only or is my mind gone bye bye. But now I am thinking it is required anytime off your own private property. (I am still on first cup of coffee this morning).
chevytaHOE5674
New member
Only time you don't legally need it is if your on your own private property, or if your on a lake going to or from your Ice fishing location IIRC.
polarisrider1
New member
Thank you, point made, it is more than just a trail permit.
raceinsnow
New member
I would like to make a comment about this.I live in Michigan and ride here and I buy the trail permits here.$45 permt fee, fine but where will it stop? If the fees were $100,$200,$500 per tag it still wont be enough for the state.(Give an inch take a mile) Didnt we have a huge amount of money after the permit system started for land ,leases ,ect? Was that put into the states general fund by our last govenor to balance the states buget? It would be nice if we could see "on paper" were all the permit money goes.
It stops at the current $45 fee for the next 5 years. After that, who knows, but $100, $200 or even $500 would be a losing bet to make for sure.
The state does not pay for land leases for the snowmobile trails. They do get easements from private land owners, but do not pay for those easements. Some of the money collected by the sale of trail permits has gone to a fund to purchase lands to put them in the system for permanent snowmobile use and avoid a situation where a private land owner denies access over a small portion of a trail and shuts down the entire trail.
The money has not been put in the general fund and been used for other purposes. It all goes back into the DNR's fund for the snowmobile program. Over the past few years, the state has taken on a much bigger role in the purchase of equipment, thus easing the financial burden that grant sponsors (the "Clubs" that maintain the trails) had when it came time to purchasing grooming equipment. The state now pays 100% of all grooming equipment- including the groomers and drags and any major repairs. The state also reimburses grant sponsors for major trail repairs like new or repaired bridges. Pays grant sponsors a set amount for each trail mile that needs to be signed and reimburses all grant sponsors for the number of miles groomed. If I remember correctly, just this year alone, the state purchased 9 new groomers and 13 new drags. The average cost of a groomer is $120K and the average cost of a drag is $30K. That's a lot of trail stickers right there.
It's all there, no one is hiding this info. All you need to do is look. A good place to start is to join the MSA and ask them for the info. You could also ask your local state representative for this info. It's all public info and available to anyone that asks. All good points you bring up.
-John
Thanks for adding this. I thought the MSA was fully transparent about the increase and even repeatedly requested comments. No one wants to pay any extra fees, but it does help to see where the money is going.
For those who don't like the fee and have reviewed the MSA information to show where the money is going, what is the suggestion or alternative? Cut back on expenses/grooming? I don't think anyone wants that. Offer a 1 or 3 pass for those who ride it infrequently? I can see that being a potential solution. If you only ride one weekend a year, $45 is a lot. I think that's the common argument that makes sense. If you ride 4 or 5 days or 30 days for that matter, it isn't a large expense, but if you only come out for 2 days, that adds up, particularly if you have a family with 3 or 4 sleds.
Make your concerns known to the MSA, not here. They exist for people who snowmobile in Michigan.
lesledhead
New member
I like the thought of a 1-3 day pass.
Yes, cut back on expenses, if that's what it takes to keep things at a reasonable level. That's what most of do at home, right? Don't have the money for the "Super Deluxe" thingy, then get just the "Super" thingy. There are certainly more trails than others that need constant upkeep. Identify those that are not the top-tier trails and limit how much money can go that way. I'm sure there's more to it than that, but you get my point.
We will make our concerns known to the MSA, but that doesn't mean we can't have open discussions elsewhere. John is kind enough to have an open forum here for discussion on various snowmobile related topics. There's nothing wrong with us discussing this here. If that was a problem, this thread would not be on post #236. If you don't want to discuss it, then I guess you then don't reply.
Please don't anyone get me wrong, I will be the first guy to stand in line to defend your snowmobile rights. And I believe the MSA has the best in mind for us in their efforts. I just think that the idea of "charge more so we can spend more" wasn't thought all the way through. There are an aweful lot of families that don't make a lot of money that simply can't afford an extra $90 so Maw and Paw can go have some fun too. This is just one more indication of where this sport is going. At one point it will be for the elite only. No room for the small guy and his wife and kids.
I still say the net outcome of this increase will be a loss.
Tony
I also think the idea of a 3-5 day pass is a good one. There will certainly be a drop in persons coming to MI to ride if they were just planning to be here for a short while and do not want to pay the 45 dollars. That is if there are other choices on where to ride.
Even if there are no other choices to ride, I think it would be a good thing to have options available for folks that are just planning to ride a few days or perhaps jump the border from WI to ride for the day.
Perhaps the MSA and MI-DNR will pick up on this and set something up.
-John
Even if there are no other choices to ride, I think it would be a good thing to have options available for folks that are just planning to ride a few days or perhaps jump the border from WI to ride for the day.
Perhaps the MSA and MI-DNR will pick up on this and set something up.
-John
skiroule
Well-known member
If I can get a three day fishing out-of-state MI fishing license, it makes perfect sense that I should be able to get a three day trail pass.
I think it would probably be quite popular and I thought this was brought up in a thread some time ago but it was suggested that the state would never adopt it. Perhaps because from a purely trail pass revenue perspective it might actually result in a loss of revenue. Ridership might have to increase considerably to offset the per-pass income reduction that would result from the limited pass. Maybe the state is just hedging its bets.
Of course, this logic ignores the fact that the businesses would benefit tremendously from any increase in ridership and I'm surprised that the state of MI doesn't recognize this.
I think it would probably be quite popular and I thought this was brought up in a thread some time ago but it was suggested that the state would never adopt it. Perhaps because from a purely trail pass revenue perspective it might actually result in a loss of revenue. Ridership might have to increase considerably to offset the per-pass income reduction that would result from the limited pass. Maybe the state is just hedging its bets.
Of course, this logic ignores the fact that the businesses would benefit tremendously from any increase in ridership and I'm surprised that the state of MI doesn't recognize this.
Last edited:
T
Team Elkhorn
Guest
I think a five day permit would be great.
This weekend my son saw my two Michigan stickers on our kitchen counter when he was visiting. He asked, "Oh are those for our sleds"? (his and our daughter in law's).
I said, "No I only bought two, those are for our sleds". (mine and my wife's).
"Why didn't you get four like you always do"? He asked.
I told him, "Because they're 45 dollars a piece now, I don't have an extra 90 bucks just laying around. If you want them buy them yourself".
After a long pause he asked, "Are you planing any trips in northern Wisconsin this year"? Kids these days.
This weekend my son saw my two Michigan stickers on our kitchen counter when he was visiting. He asked, "Oh are those for our sleds"? (his and our daughter in law's).
I said, "No I only bought two, those are for our sleds". (mine and my wife's).
"Why didn't you get four like you always do"? He asked.
I told him, "Because they're 45 dollars a piece now, I don't have an extra 90 bucks just laying around. If you want them buy them yourself".
After a long pause he asked, "Are you planing any trips in northern Wisconsin this year"? Kids these days.
I didn't intend to tell you not to discuss it here. Just saying it would be more useful to take it up with them directly. Your comments are well-reasoned and thought through. I enjoy the discussion here also.