• Steel Soldiers now has a few new forums, read more about it at: New Munitions Forums!

  • Microsoft MSN, Live, Hotmail, Outlook email users may not be receiving emails. We are working to resolve this issue. Please add support@steelsoldiers.com to your trusted contacts.

Wisconsin allegedly cancelling Military vehicle titles.

lstmate

Member
301
-1
16
Location
Jasper, IN
Hope it is OK

Undysworld I hope it is ok. I copied your post and a link to this thread on the G503 website. I did this because you are not the only one in Wisconsin working on this issue and I think that numbers become important in these kind of fights. I know that John Adams-Graf, editor for the Military Vehicle magazine has had a meeting and is researching this issue so even maybe a member of the press being present may be helpful.

Here is a link to the thread on the G503 web site:

http://www.g503.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=101394&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

Good luck in Wisconsin!

Garry
 

jagjetta

Member
76
0
6
Location
Missouri
Wisconsin Update

Paul and all,
I thought I would post a quick update as to what is happening here in WI.

A group of about 25 HMV owners met last night in Kaukauna to organize an "action plan." They all agreed it was probably best to approach this as an entity rather than individuals covering the same ground. The group got together because it quickly became apparent that this can't be solved at the DOT level, but rather, through changing existing law. Everyone echoed the same thing when telling of their talks with DOT: "They have their statute and have dug in their heels."

We have worked diligently to gather documents and hard data and to winnow off the hear-say. In doing so, it became obvious that the change in DOT attitude occurred right around December 2006. Creating paper trails on all of the rumors has proved to be challenging! However, we felt we had a really good handle on the facts. The one loose end is the claim that someone actually had a title revoked. We haven't been able to produce documentation on that yet but are tracking down leads. All felt that is was crucial that we have documents to back up any claims we make as we move ahead.

In all, we identified five organized groups or clubs in the state which are pretty well dispersed to represent all of the state. From each group, we established a point-of-contact so that we can avoid copying everyone on emails and try to reduce the amount to redundancy.

The offending statute that DOT hanging their case was identified. We discussed how this statute could be amended to insure registering and titling of historic military vehicles. Our previous discussion with a couple of legislators advised that we becareful with the wording of any proposed ammendment so that it can't be misinterpreted later on.

To that end, I am delighted to report that we have received a very kind offer of services of a law firm (who happens to own a half-track and several HMVs) who are going to help us with wording and moving through legislation. They will be essential in formulating the amendment so that it reads correctly.

The Kansas group has been in touch with us as well and given us copies of how they approached and prevailed in their problems with the same situation in their state. That is going to prove to be a great model to follow.

We encourage any Wisconsin residents to drop me or Jeff Rowsam an email. Jeff is coordinating the effort and serving as our point of contact with the lawyers, the legislators etc. Most of you know Jeff, but if you don't, he is a big-truck guy who dresses up real nice and knows how to deal with bureaucrats. He is a Caterpillar engineer by trade. His email is:
jerowsam@centurytel.net My email is: john.adams-graf@fwpubs.com

Forward!
John A-G
Iola, WI
 

hndrsonj

Senior Chief/Moderator
Super Moderator
Steel Soldiers Supporter
7,584
363
83
Location
Cheyenne, WY
The thread on the G503 forum has two different issues; the first is the pinz issue, second was the jeep registration. There is a problem with titling in different states. Where the jeep on the 503 forum was origionally purchased was GA. They do not issue titles to vehicles that old just registration. So how does one who buys, say a jeep in GA, title it in WI without going through a company like Broadway? The state (GA) will not give a title even if you offer to pay extra and tell them it is going to a state that requires titles. Meanwhile WI will not give a title because you don't have a title to turn in. I currently have the same problem with my M116A1 trailer-GA will register it but not give a title, WI won't title cause no GA title to turn in.The pinz issue has a potential to touch all in this hobby, Hopefully the legislators will see the light monday and be able to solve the military vehicle problem with WI DMV's.
 

jagjetta

Member
76
0
6
Location
Missouri
General:
I will try to briefly address your questions.
First, the jeep in question was purchased in TEXAS not Georgia. Again, this is one of the problems we are struggling with: The internet is a great method to disseminate info, but it gets twisted too easily and people feel they are quoting documentable facts when, in fact, they are not. The Jeep purchaser was at our meeting and gladly shared all of his documents with us.

Second, the Pinz issue and the Jeep issue are not seperate. They are one and the same. Both vehicles were for titling rejected on the basis of the same statute. There is just the one statute one which the DOT has hung their hat. Furthermore, they began in December 2006 to enforce it and it is trickling down to the various branches from Madison. This is good for us, though. It makes it easier to amend an existing statute and makes it easier for DOT to make a concession. Our goal is amend the statute in order for any historic military vehicle to be eligible for registration and titling. Once registered and titled, it will be up to the individual to decide if he/she wants to get collector plates, hobbyist plates, antique plates, regular plates, or whatever. The issue at hand is registering and obtaining a title.

I don't want to try to offer any advice as to how to proceed on transactions right now. Helping change the law is the best step without drawing more vehicles into the crosshairs. Right now, DOT has specifically targeted (and this is THEIR words) "1943 MBs, Pinzgauers and Jimmies". When folks confront DOT, we are afraid, that list will grow. We aren't going to change DOT by confronting DOT. However, we can change the rules that DOT enforces (by changing the exisiting law).

FWIW,
John A-G
 

hndrsonj

Senior Chief/Moderator
Super Moderator
Steel Soldiers Supporter
7,584
363
83
Location
Cheyenne, WY
Got GA from the G503 thread. Any thoughts on a timeline to get this resolved?
 

AJMBLAZER

New member
2,688
8
0
Location
Paducah, KY
Well, sounds like they're targeting jeep owners and other military vehicles, maybe it's just me that thinks this, but you can get a much bigger pool of green vehicle owners to show up than if you go with just go for Pinz owners. How many of those are actually in Wisconsin? I've never even seen one in person but I see several former military vehicles every day (not including my own).

This affects everyone in your state, I wouldn't try to start out small as they're going to try to ignore you or classify you as an irrelevent minority stat right from the get go.
 

jagjetta

Member
76
0
6
Location
Missouri
hndrsonj:
Yeah, I know how that goes...a lot of time was spent sifting through printouts from various bulletin boards to determine the chain of events. But, the single best thing was talking to the MB owner. What a nice guy, and new to the HMV hobby. You can imagine how discouraged he is feeling right now!

I might be getting ahead of the game here, but this is the basic idea of how we see it proceeding:

So far, we have a plan of action to draft the amendmet to the offending statute. Folks throughout Wisconsin will be contributing to this (we established a chain of communication to the various regions of the state to get info in and then disseminate it).

The next step is to have the legal team review it. At that point, we will have terminology drafted and consistent so that we can have a statewide "call to action." That will be the time to contact representatives. We will be able to provide the key points to everyone so that when they do contact their rep, that consistent terminology and requests are made. We have to make it easy for those political folks to understand and be careful not to confuse them!

Then we will meet with key legislative folks to get the amendment on the docket.

This, of course, will take some time, but in the end we will have HMVs protected and respected in Wisconsin.

John
 

No.2Diesel

New member
1,264
11
0
Location
Huntington, NY
If the specific statute prohibiting MVs was identified, can someone post it here?

Was this just a case of: It was on the books but no one enforced it?

What triggered this ridiculous enforcement?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wisconsin is the last place in the U.S. that you would think would restrict the use of a certain motor vehicle. I think someone, somewhere in "come on now don'tcha know" land; got a booboo in an automobile accident with an MV and had connections to a certain state office. Otherwise who would have such a 'hard-on' for MVs.

In the words of Samuel L. Jackson: "This is some censored up repugnant sh!t !!

----------------------------------------------------

So now its:

1) No MVs allowed in WI
2) Need a CDL for any MV with tandems in CA
 

DDoyle

Well-known member
Supporting Vendor
1,825
80
48
Location
West Tennessee
I, like MV owners everywhere, have been watching this thread with interest (I've got a lot of good friends with MVs in Wisconsin) - and you never know if another state is going to follow suite.

However, I think its really important that those of us outside of Wisconsin NOT contact the Wisconsin DOT, DMV or legislators. Maybe its my southern upbringing - but I have a real issue when outsiders (AKA Carpetbaggers) start meddling in local politics - and I bet the ol' boys up in the Wisconsin statehouse (and DMV) do to.

I suspect that JAG will let us all know if we need to start a letter-writing campaign. And while we're at this, although this, G503 and other historic military vehicle message boards seem "private" - in reality google brings up these postings almost instantly. While everyone here has been civil and the postings well thought out - lets be sure and keep it that way. We don't want to give some DMV-type additional ammunition - or leads - to use to entrench themselves further. We see ourselves as patriots and preserving artifacts from our country's history - but I recall when I moved into my house (with a yard full of 6x6s) one of my neighbors called a fellow (who I happened to know) to say some lunatic with the militia had just moved in - and that is how easy it is for us to be mislabeled by appearance. Lets not help those that would do that.

Regards,
David Doyle
 

jagjetta

Member
76
0
6
Location
Missouri
DDoyle said:
Maybe its my southern upbringing - but I have a real issue when outsiders (AKA Carpetbaggers) start meddling in local politics - and I bet the ol' boys up in the Wisconsin statehouse (and DMV) do to.
:lol: DDoyle has got to be my favorite Confederate (well, next to General Braxton Bragg). "Carpet baggers!" Boy, that isn't an expression we hear too often up north, but the relationship to the Rebellion is quite real. The fact that each state retains the right to make up rules for their roads, independent of Federal regulations, just smacks of "state's rights". :wink:

There will be a time for a letter campaign from within Wisconsin (i.e., residents. Unfortunately, our reps don't give two tosses what someone outside the state seems to think is important). That time will come soon enough...but we, as a group (to use the term a "loose confederation of alliances" probably is overkill in this post!), want to formulate the language (i.e, a letter) that gets the point across briefly, accurately and clearly states what we are asking for.

The goal is to enable anyone to register and receive a title for any historic military vehicle. Then, the person will be able to apply for the plates of his/her choice (be it collector, antique, vanity, hobbyist or whatever).

The Wisconsin Yankee,
John
 

undysworld

Member
493
9
18
Location
Blue Mounds, WI
Hi All,
Good words above from DDoyle and John @ Iola.
I just spoke with Mr. Doeckel from Sen. Erpenbach's office, and yes, they are concerned about getting deluged with calls/letters from outside of their districts. They are only able to provide representation for their own constituents, and overwhelming them will not be seen as a positive. They have requested that I limit attendance at my appointed meeting to people directly involved with Pinzgauers and in Sen. Erpenbach's district. I have two fellow Pinz owners who will attend, as well as my neighbor and friend Mr. D. C. Harned, Brig. Gen. USAF, ret.
Further, Mr. Doeckel was aware of many details of conversations which have taken place here and on other sites. We are all (Wis. DOT/DMV included) smart enough to know how to use the internet, so please, no ranting as this will not help our cause at all.
I explained to him that it was not my intent to cause a scene, but wanted to discuss the issue and seek some answers. I told him that in my opinion, the state statute had been misinterpretted, and we wished to voice our opinion about that in the hopes of convincing Sen. Erpenbach adopt our cause. I told him I did not view this meeting as the time to solve to the issue, but as an initial step towards resolving it. What I find out, I will share with everyone and we'll see where that takes us.
Paul
 

BSH

Member
112
0
16
Location
Baraboo, WI
Given that this has happened in two states now, folks elsewhere should take more than a passing interest. It doesn't seem out of line to expect this to pop up more. Perhaps we should lay the groundwork to prepare similar legislative efforts in all our home states? The Kansas model seemed to be quite good for achieving a reasonable solution.
 

ARMYMAN30YearsPlus

In Memorial
In Memorial
3,585
7
0
Location
Parkville, MD
Don't forget Wisconsin is where the democrats incapacitated conservative get out the vote vehicles in Milwaulkee. I never flinch anymore at liberal stupidness. I am reading Anne Coulte's Godless the religion of the American left and having resided in Maryland for 10 years now the liberal onesidedness and hate are ever present.

The clueless folks just keep it coming and I just scrape it off my windshield.
 

jagjetta

Member
76
0
6
Location
Missouri
undysworld said:
we wished to voice our opinion about that in the hopes of convincing Sen. Erpenbach adopt our cause. I told him I did not view this meeting as the time to solve to the issue, but as an initial step towards resolving it. What I find out, I will share with everyone and we'll see where that takes us.
Paul
Paul and all who are attending the Monday meeting,
Please let Mr. Doeckle know that the entire historic military vehicle community in Wisconsin (and not just Pinzy owners) has been working hard with Senators Kedzie and Ellis to resolve this issue for all historic military vehicle owners. I am sure he will be glad to hear that there is an organized effort to represent all owners and that this won't be a repeated process for Pinzy owners, then Unimog guys, followed by the Iltis drivers and then all the regular US Jeep crowd, 3/4-ton Dodge crowd and the the Big Truck Boys. No one has to feel like the lone-duck in the effort to license and title historic military vehicles.

Hopefully, you gather some useful information that you can share with our group...we can feed it to our lawyers who will figure out how to assemble it all into the best package possible. Good luck!

Best regards,
John A-G
Iola WI
john.adams-graf@fwpubs.com
 

Goatwerks

Member
103
0
16
Location
San Bernardino, Ca.
As a seasoned(30+years) Auto repair technition/drivetrain specialist, I have to say most ex mil vehicles are built safer and sturdier than any civilian models. I am surprised that a state with such horrible roads in some places would willingly throw away much needed road tax dollars. It is customary in the majority of states to "Use Grandfather clauses" when laws change to protect their citizens rights. This at the very least should bear some weight in the legal ends of things. I guess as I own a Pinz and a(Civilian FED compliant) Steyr N.A.700AP Haflinger I will have to scratch Wis. off my friendly state list :shock:
Only a fool would cut off their nose to spite their face.
 

AJMBLAZER

New member
2,688
8
0
Location
Paducah, KY
Anyone addressed how this would affect the Dodge M88x series and GM M100x series CUCV's?

Hard to say those aren't road worthy or similar to their civilian counterparts.
 

Elwenil

New member
2,190
40
0
Location
Covington, VA
I've been watching this thread for a while now, as well as other mentions of this topic on other forums. And while it doesn't concern me directly (yet) I can't help but notice that there seems to be two camps against this. One who is protesting the off road only status of Pinzgauers and the other is concerned with all former military vehicles. I've seen a few posts talking about how people are banding together to put one front against this "law" and another simply dealing with the Pinz issue. It's been mentioned before, and I won't presume to tell anyone their business but it seems that both sides are working toward the same thing in the end. Would it not be better to confront this issue with a united front and not have everyone working with different people to achieve similar but still separate results? I mean, if the Pinz camp wins their fight and the rest of the MV ownership still has to battle through, it would seem a waste of time and resources, not to mention the stateside MV ownership could be weakened in their fight due to the Pinz owners already having achieved their desired result, drop out of the fight. On the other hand, the Pinz owners could obviously use the help of the rest of the MV owners since I'm certain they vastly outnumber the Pinz owners so they would have a larger "force" if you will, to confront this ruling. If you are all pulling for the same thing, why not do it together? Just my .02
 

undysworld

Member
493
9
18
Location
Blue Mounds, WI
Hello everybody, I'd like to update everyone on my meeting this morning with my Senator, Jon Erpenbach. Due to a conflict, George Stauffer was unable to attend with me. However, I was accompanied by Tom Landmann (Pinz owner from Dodgeville, WI) and Donne C. Harned , Brig. Gen. USAF ret. (my friend and neighbor). Surprisingly, Sen. Erpenbach was able to sit in on the meeting with us, along with his staff members Rober Doeckel and Trey (? not sure of his name). There was no one present to represent the WisDOT. I read the statement which I had prepared. Tom related his story. His Pinz has been licensed here since 2000, even longer than mine has. We were well received by Sen. Erpenbach, and he seemed genuinely interested in what has occurred. He asked several pertinent questions following my statement. I showed them pictures from my service manual of a 712M, the truck I own. He inquired about the length of time which our trucks have been registered. We discussed and compared the size of a Pinz with the specs of my 1994 Toyota ex-cab 4x4 pickup. Senator Erpenbach indicated that he would seek answers to the questions we raised. Mr. Doeckel promised to contact us with information following their inquiry.
My prepared statement is as follows:

  Thank you for the opportunity to meet today and discuss an issue of great importance to myself, and so many other owners of historic military vehicles (HMVs).  I would like to initially state that I am under no misconceptions about resolving this matter today.  However, throughout the history of our country, ordinary citizens have been called upon to stand up to laws which do not fairly address the needs of the public.  Our body of law continues to be a changing, evolving presence, reflecting as closely as possible our needs to set reasonable guidelines.  I would cite as an example the civil rights laws which have been altered immeasurably over the past 100 years, with justification, I might add.  It is in a similar spirit that I requested this meeting, and now stand before you in the hope of persuading you that this is a situation where a law ought to be amended.  I hope that you will reward me with an open minded consideration of the matter.
To begin with, I would like to tell you a little bit about myself and my situation.  I am 48 yrs. old, born and raised in Wisconsin.  I am married and have an 11 year old son.  In 1974, at the age of 14, I suffered a broken neck due to a swimming accident.  This left me a quadriplegic for several weeks, and ultimately with a condition known as Brown-Sequard syndrome, in which a person loses tactile (feeling) nerves on one side of their body and loses motor (movement) nerves on the opposite side.  In January, 2000, while working as a carpenter, I crushed the bottom two discs in my back, which has left me permanently disabled.  Since that injury, I have gone through a lumbar laminectomy surgery, completed 5 physical therapy regimens, undergone Tao Shiatsu treatments, and extensive exercise regimens in the hope of recovery.  I have not been able to secure a job since that time.   I applied for, and was turned down for, disability income. My family and I live on a 102 acre farm in southwest Dane Co.  Nearby is our "family farm", a 320 acre farm in Iowa Co. which has been in my family for 125 years, of which I am a 1/6 owner.  I spend my days managing and caring for these two properties.
In 2002, I purchased a used Steyr-Puch Pinzgauer from Patrick Robb in Littleton, CO.  Patrick's business is importing, selling, and servicing HMVs.  Some of my reasons for selecting this truck were, undoubtedly, the same reasons most people choose the vehicles they drive: I could afford it, it fits my needs, and I like the looks of it.  However, as with any HMV, there are the additional benefits of owning a piece of history, as well as the investment potential of any collector vehicle.
I bought my truck to use and enjoy.  Since the day I registered the truck, June 27, 2002, I have used it to transport my family on vacations, to attend local car show events, and for all manner of farm-related work.   It has allowed us to enjoy camping in the nations National Parks and National Forests from Michigan to Colorado, despite my physical limitations.  I have carried my son's Boy Scout pack in parades and entered it in three different car shows.  With over 400 acres under my supervision, and much of those hilly or wetlands, the truck is indispensable for activities like fencing, chasing loose cattle and clearing brush and invasive woody plants.  The Pinzgauer is the only vehicle I own which is capable of all these functions.  Due to the Wisconsin Department of Transportation's (WisDOT) actions, I am no longer able to use my truck for any reason.
In 1996, my mother was fatally injured by having an airplane run her over while she walked her dog down a closed runway south of Mt. Horeb.  The accident broke her neck and she died 10 months later.  I used money I inherited from her estate to purchase my truck.  I have nearly $20,000.00 invested in this truck.  Along with the DOTs letter of September 25 came a "corrected" title bearing the brandings "NON-ROADWORTHY" and "NOT FOR HWY USE".   Despite what the DOT may opine, these ARE considered roadworthy by all other 49 states, as well as every other country in the world.  However, these brandings have effectively made it impossible for this truck to be resold for any type of road operation anywhere in the U.S.  Again due solely to the DOT's actions, the worth of my investment has been substantially devalued. How can it be fair that an investment, made in good faith, can arbitrarily and years later be destroyed by the DOT?  This is not equitable. 
I did not come here today to debate with the DOT their opinion as to whether a HMV should or should not be considered legal to register and operate in Wisconsin.  They have made their position known and they seem quite resolute in their position.  I happen to differ with their assessment. I do have some questions, however.
I question the timing of the decision, as I have owned and operated my truck for over five years without so much as a parking ticket. HMVs in general have been privately owned and operated in Wisconsin for decades. In fact, the DOT's Research Department reviewed my specific application before they ever issued me the original title. What has changed?
To my knowledge, there have been no recent amendments to the laws of our state which have necessitated this change in DOT policy.  Indeed, HMV owners in the other 49 states can still legally operate their HMVs on all Wisconsin roads.  How then can it be fair that a legal, taxpaying, Wisconsin resident is banned from operating such a vehicle within that resident's own state?  This is not right. What law is the DOT basing their decision to consider HMVs as "NON-ROADWORTHY" on? If the decision was not based on a change in the law, what documents do they use to define what is "NON-ROADWORTHY"?
HMVs were manufactured to meet several design criteria, some specific to their military tasks. But the truth is that nearly all HMVs were also designed to operate on public highways. The Interstate Highway System, designed and developed under President Eisenhower, owes its' existence, in large part, to the need for a swift mobile army, with military vehicles moving safely on paved roadways. The European Autobahn has similar origins. In fact, it could be argued that the only HMVs which are built exclusively for "off-road use" are naval ships. Even a Sherman tank had rubber pads to prevent wear to the treads and to minimize road damage while operating on pavement. This was tremendously important since it prevented the destruction of the very roads their supplies had to move up on. I would be curious to know what the DMV means when it states that HMVs weren't "manufactured for road use".
The DOTs letter also states that my truck was "manufactured in Switzerland", yet there is a large plate mounted inside the drivers door which declares "Made In AUSTRIA". Granted, both countries are in Europe, but it makes me question the thoroughness of the DMV's research. If such a basic detail as that is incorrect, what else may they have missed as well?
I further question the basic intent of banning operation of HMVs. I appreciate that the basis for this ill-concieved DOT policy is that it is somehow looking out for citizens and protecting them from dangerous motor vehicles. If the DOT believes that HMVs pose a threat to the public, please provide me with the data upon which this belief rests. If DOT is going to change the rules of the game without having a clear mandate from the legislature or from the public, there needs to be a clear rational for the change. While I am sure that this was not simply a unilateral mandate from someone in a small back office, there must be some articulable reason other than simply stating that "Wisconsin has never titled military vehicles".
I did come here today to relate to you the losses which I have suffered as a result of the DOT's change of policy.  I also came to urge you to consider the impact this policy will have on all Wisconsinites: Veterans groups, the EAA, Memorial Day Parades, educational groups, not-for-profit (caritable) organizations, the many EMS and Fire Departments who rely on HMVs to perform various functions, and even the venerable Wisconsin Dells Ducks.  That list does not even include the thousands of citizens who choose to own and enjoy a HMV, whether it is as a reminder of their own time in the armed service, as their private piece of history, or simply to go and fetch groceries with. Our small group here today is but the tip of an unhappy iceberg.  It is my sincere desire that Sen. Erpenbach would agree with our position and assist us in this endeavor, or if needs be, be willing to work with other elected representatives to amend the state statutes to allow Wisconsin residents full, legal, private ownership and operation of all HMVs.  
As a final irony, I would like to point out that in this day and age of financial belt tightening, with roads going unrepaired, police and fire department cutting back, public schools canceling programs, it seems counterintuitive that our state would seek to limit the income generated by the licensing of any maintained and roadworthy vehicle.  It seems more likely that determined owners will simply be forced to license the vehicles in other states and continue to drive them.  That way Wisconsin still gets the benefit of HMVs being operated on our roads without having to deal with that pesky income.  Let's use some common sense and keep our roads safe, regulated, and funded without desenfranchising a significant population of Wisconsin voters.
To Lanty, It's our opinion here (Wis HMV owners) that we'd do better united. I've tried to phrase my statement to be inclusive of ALL HMVs regardless of origin. There certainly is a unique aspect to the Pinz's place in this fight, in that it's non-US and imported. BUT, IMHO, HMVs are HMVs. One for all and all for one.

Anyway, I've been burning the proverbial midnight oil the last few nights to get ready for the meeting. I'll probably be in bed for the next several hours...........
Later, Paul
 

undysworld

Member
493
9
18
Location
Blue Mounds, WI
Hello everybody, I'd like to update everyone on my meeting this morning with my Senator, Jon Erpenbach. Due to a conflict, George Stauffer was unable to attend with me. However, I was accompanied by Tom Landmann (Pinz owner from Dodgeville, WI) and Donne C. Harned , Brig. Gen. USAF ret. (my friend and neighbor). Surprisingly, Sen. Erpenbach was able to sit in on the meeting with us, along with his staff members Rober Doeckel and Trey (? not sure of his name). There was no one present to represent the WisDOT. I read the statement which I had prepared. Tom related his story. His Pinz has been licensed here since 2000, even longer than mine has. We were well received by Sen. Erpenbach, and he seemed genuinely interested in what has occurred. He asked several pertinent questions following my statement. I showed them pictures from my service manual of a 712M, the truck I own. He inquired about the length of time which our trucks have been registered. We discussed and compared the size of a Pinz with the specs of my 1994 Toyota ex-cab 4x4 pickup. Senator Erpenbach indicated that he would seek answers to the questions we raised. Mr. Doeckel promised to contact us with information following their inquiry.
My prepared statement is as follows:

  Thank you for the opportunity to meet today and discuss an issue of great importance to myself, and so many other owners of historic military vehicles (HMVs).  I would like to initially state that I am under no misconceptions about resolving this matter today.  However, throughout the history of our country, ordinary citizens have been called upon to stand up to laws which do not fairly address the needs of the public.  Our body of law continues to be a changing, evolving presence, reflecting as closely as possible our needs to set reasonable guidelines.  I would cite as an example the civil rights laws which have been altered immeasurably over the past 100 years, with justification, I might add.  It is in a similar spirit that I requested this meeting, and now stand before you in the hope of persuading you that this is a situation where a law ought to be amended.  I hope that you will reward me with an open minded consideration of the matter.
To begin with, I would like to tell you a little bit about myself and my situation.  I am 48 yrs. old, born and raised in Wisconsin.  I am married and have an 11 year old son.  In 1974, at the age of 14, I suffered a broken neck due to a swimming accident.  This left me a quadriplegic for several weeks, and ultimately with a condition known as Brown-Sequard syndrome, in which a person loses tactile (feeling) nerves on one side of their body and loses motor (movement) nerves on the opposite side.  In January, 2000, while working as a carpenter, I crushed the bottom two discs in my back, which has left me permanently disabled.  Since that injury, I have gone through a lumbar laminectomy surgery, completed 5 physical therapy regimens, undergone Tao Shiatsu treatments, and extensive exercise regimens in the hope of recovery.  I have not been able to secure a job since that time.   I applied for, and was turned down for, disability income. My family and I live on a 102 acre farm in southwest Dane Co.  Nearby is our "family farm", a 320 acre farm in Iowa Co. which has been in my family for 125 years, of which I am a 1/6 owner.  I spend my days managing and caring for these two properties.
In 2002, I purchased a used Steyr-Puch Pinzgauer from Patrick Robb in Littleton, CO.  Patrick's business is importing, selling, and servicing HMVs.  Some of my reasons for selecting this truck were, undoubtedly, the same reasons most people choose the vehicles they drive: I could afford it, it fits my needs, and I like the looks of it.  However, as with any HMV, there are the additional benefits of owning a piece of history, as well as the investment potential of any collector vehicle.
I bought my truck to use and enjoy.  Since the day I registered the truck, June 27, 2002, I have used it to transport my family on vacations, to attend local car show events, and for all manner of farm-related work.   It has allowed us to enjoy camping in the nations National Parks and National Forests from Michigan to Colorado, despite my physical limitations.  I have carried my son's Boy Scout pack in parades and entered it in three different car shows.  With over 400 acres under my supervision, and much of those hilly or wetlands, the truck is indispensable for activities like fencing, chasing loose cattle and clearing brush and invasive woody plants.  The Pinzgauer is the only vehicle I own which is capable of all these functions.  Due to the Wisconsin Department of Transportation's (WisDOT) actions, I am no longer able to use my truck for any reason.
In 1996, my mother was fatally injured by having an airplane run her over while she walked her dog down a closed runway south of Mt. Horeb.  The accident broke her neck and she died 10 months later.  I used money I inherited from her estate to purchase my truck.  I have nearly $20,000.00 invested in this truck.  Along with the DOTs letter of September 25 came a "corrected" title bearing the brandings "NON-ROADWORTHY" and "NOT FOR HWY USE".   Despite what the DOT may opine, these ARE considered roadworthy by all other 49 states, as well as every other country in the world.  However, these brandings have effectively made it impossible for this truck to be resold for any type of road operation anywhere in the U.S.  Again due solely to the DOT's actions, the worth of my investment has been substantially devalued. How can it be fair that an investment, made in good faith, can arbitrarily and years later be destroyed by the DOT?  This is not equitable. 
I did not come here today to debate with the DOT their opinion as to whether a HMV should or should not be considered legal to register and operate in Wisconsin.  They have made their position known and they seem quite resolute in their position.  I happen to differ with their assessment. I do have some questions, however.
I question the timing of the decision, as I have owned and operated my truck for over five years without so much as a parking ticket. HMVs in general have been privately owned and operated in Wisconsin for decades. In fact, the DOT's Research Department reviewed my specific application before they ever issued me the original title. What has changed?
To my knowledge, there have been no recent amendments to the laws of our state which have necessitated this change in DOT policy.  Indeed, HMV owners in the other 49 states can still legally operate their HMVs on all Wisconsin roads.  How then can it be fair that a legal, taxpaying, Wisconsin resident is banned from operating such a vehicle within that resident's own state?  This is not right. What law is the DOT basing their decision to consider HMVs as "NON-ROADWORTHY" on? If the decision was not based on a change in the law, what documents do they use to define what is "NON-ROADWORTHY"?
HMVs were manufactured to meet several design criteria, some specific to their military tasks. But the truth is that nearly all HMVs were also designed to operate on public highways. The Interstate Highway System, designed and developed under President Eisenhower, owes its' existence, in large part, to the need for a swift mobile army, with military vehicles moving safely on paved roadways. The European Autobahn has similar origins. In fact, it could be argued that the only HMVs which are built exclusively for "off-road use" are naval ships. Even a Sherman tank had rubber pads to prevent wear to the treads and to minimize road damage while operating on pavement. This was tremendously important since it prevented the destruction of the very roads their supplies had to move up on. I would be curious to know what the DMV means when it states that HMVs weren't "manufactured for road use".
The DOTs letter also states that my truck was "manufactured in Switzerland", yet there is a large plate mounted inside the drivers door which declares "Made In AUSTRIA". Granted, both countries are in Europe, but it makes me question the thoroughness of the DMV's research. If such a basic detail as that is incorrect, what else may they have missed as well?
I further question the basic intent of banning operation of HMVs. I appreciate that the basis for this ill-concieved DOT policy is that it is somehow looking out for citizens and protecting them from dangerous motor vehicles. If the DOT believes that HMVs pose a threat to the public, please provide me with the data upon which this belief rests. If DOT is going to change the rules of the game without having a clear mandate from the legislature or from the public, there needs to be a clear rational for the change. While I am sure that this was not simply a unilateral mandate from someone in a small back office, there must be some articulable reason other than simply stating that "Wisconsin has never titled military vehicles".
I did come here today to relate to you the losses which I have suffered as a result of the DOT's change of policy.  I also came to urge you to consider the impact this policy will have on all Wisconsinites: Veterans groups, the EAA, Memorial Day Parades, educational groups, not-for-profit (caritable) organizations, the many EMS and Fire Departments who rely on HMVs to perform various functions, and even the venerable Wisconsin Dells Ducks.  That list does not even include the thousands of citizens who choose to own and enjoy a HMV, whether it is as a reminder of their own time in the armed service, as their private piece of history, or simply to go and fetch groceries with. Our small group here today is but the tip of an unhappy iceberg.  It is my sincere desire that Sen. Erpenbach would agree with our position and assist us in this endeavor, or if needs be, be willing to work with other elected representatives to amend the state statutes to allow Wisconsin residents full, legal, private ownership and operation of all HMVs.  
As a final irony, I would like to point out that in this day and age of financial belt tightening, with roads going unrepaired, police and fire department cutting back, public schools canceling programs, it seems counterintuitive that our state would seek to limit the income generated by the licensing of any maintained and roadworthy vehicle.  It seems more likely that determined owners will simply be forced to license the vehicles in other states and continue to drive them.  That way Wisconsin still gets the benefit of HMVs being operated on our roads without having to deal with that pesky income.  Let's use some common sense and keep our roads safe, regulated, and funded without desenfranchising a significant population of Wisconsin voters.
To Lanty, It's our opinion here (Wis HMV owners) that we'd do better united. I've tried to phrase my statement to be inclusive of ALL HMVs regardless of origin. There certainly is a unique aspect to the Pinz's place in this fight, in that it's non-US and imported. BUT, IMHO, HMVs are HMVs. One for all and all for one.

Anyway, I've been burning the proverbial midnight oil the last few nights to get ready for the meeting. I'll probably be in bed for the next several hours...........
Later, Paul
 
Top