In Henry’s latest article, he made a strong case for stepping up and supporting local seasonal road funding, and he is absolutely right. Currently, Michigan’s seasonal road funding remains stagnant at $5 million. Adjusted for inflation, that figure should be closer to $20 million. This isn’t an unreasonable ask, especially considering that ten years ago, the state budget was approximately $53.9 billion, while the 2025 budget is reaching $82.5 billion. That is a $28.6 billion increase over a decade. Frankly, $20 million might be too modest a request to get the Legislature’s attention.
Recently, I had a small win regarding seasonal and state forest roads in my area. With the growing popularity of ORVs and side-by-sides, our forest road system has become sandy and difficult for log trucks to navigate. This has limited access for timber sales, sometimes forcing us to use roads shared with pipeline infrastructure. In our region, oil and gas wells are spaced roughly every 40 acres, and many of the pipelines run through roads originally built by loggers.
I recently had a dispute with a local oil company over a state forest road. The company claimed I was damaging the road and insisted gravel needed to be placed to protect their pipeline. After inspecting the road myself, I saw some sandy patches but did not observe the level of damage they described. I believed I was in compliance with the state contract, which requires roads to be maintained in the same or better condition as when work began. After communication between the DNR, the oil company and myself we came up with a solution. Ultimately, the DNR provided the gravel, I handled the trucking, and the oil company did the leveling. Everyone was satisfied and the state forest road was improved at minimal cost to any one party.
This experience made me wonder. Why can’t we apply this collaborative model to all state forest and seasonal roads, especially in areas surrounded by public land? As a logger, I have worked with road commissions willing to haul and spread gravel if I cover the cost of the material. On state land, why cannot road commissions tap into small gravel veins scattered throughout the forest to improve roads for both logging and recreation?
Many of our DNR and seasonal roads were originally built using local gravel sources, yet today’s regulations make that nearly impossible. It’s frustrating to see different branches of government whether it’s the County Road Commission, the DNR, or EGLE struggling to collaborate, often caught in a tangle of conflicting rules and red tape. I’ve even heard of a gravel pit leased by the DNR to a road commission that may be returned simply because the regulatory burden has become too overwhelming.
I represent the logging industry on the Forest Management Advisory Committee for the Michigan DNR. Trail rider groups, snowmobile clubs, and the Michigan Snowmobile & ORV Association all raise similar concerns at our meetings. Trail quality is declining, and funding is insufficient to address the problem. Despite our different roles, we share the same goal.
Whether in Michigan or Wisconsin, the bottom line is recreation advocates, loggers, road commissions, and the DNR all want to improve our road systems. We just need to find a way to work together toward that common goal.
If we truly want to preserve access to Michigan’s forests, support our outdoor recreation economy, and sustain responsible logging practices, then we must stop treating road maintenance as a fragmented issue. It’s time to recognize that seasonal and forest roads are vital infrastructure. Not just for industry, but for communities, conservation, and recreation. The funding is within reach, the partnerships already exist, and the public support is growing. What’s missing is the will to cut through red tape and work together. Let’s stop letting bureaucracy stall progress and start building a road system that reflects the value of our natural resources and the people who depend on them.
Mike Elenz
GLTPA President