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
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". 
