[quote]
Originally posted by: blackballed
I purchased my first ATV in 1986. Since then, I've watched ATV popularity expand to where some riding areas turn into small cities on weekends and large ones on 3-day holidays. And those are just the areas where some semblance of order due to public/private control does exist. Make no mistake, due to land and liability insurance costs, large pay-to-ride ATV parks are not in the future. Public and private lands are it. Unless the sport does police itself, a majority of private landowners will take my attitude, no riders because it's way too much hassle in attempting to sort out responsible individuals who respect their privilege from the flakes after the fact. And public opinion against destructive ATV activities will force public officials to increase restrictions on public land because they don't have the funding to properly police/and/or repair them. As a taxpayer and voter, I'll support severe, additional restrictions long before I ever even consider increasing my tax burden to facilitate irresponsible riders.

 

I don't know... I share your read on the industry.. but I think the folks in West Virginia on the Hatfield/McCoy or the folks around the Pauite trail in Utah, or the Silver country might disagree with you.... HM certainly would qualify for a pay to ride. Out here in the East coast, there are several doing quite well actually. I hope they succeed... as I think they ARE the future of the sport. Certainly the owners have MORE control than on public lands.... I guess it is going to come down to what you are used to. I'd pay $25 a day to ride if it were within a hundred miles of where I live. Right now, the closest is about 5 hours away... well one hour to one, but it is too small to be worth it, and they are the most expensive...

 

I have also seen another group who thought it was 'their right' to use the forest any way they wanted to, come up against USFS. These are the rock climbers. I used to do a bit of rock climbing myself, nothing serious, 5.10 was the best I could do. The climbers in Red River Gorge went hog wild with the bolts - shiny metal loops they bolted into the cliffs to attach ropes to as they ascended. Several of us tried to warn them that they were getting out of hand, but their argument was 'it's public land, and our right to do this'. The other users of the Gorge started complaining about cliffs that had so many lines of shiny silver bolts that they looked like a kid with braces. USFS stepped in and put a stop to the wildcat bolting, not because they are power hungry or hated the climbers, but because the climbers were starting to intrude on everyone else. They could have used rock colored bolts and probably have solved the problem, but they didn't show any regard for the concerns of the rest of the public. And they got hammered. So the 'its my right' argument has been tried, and it didn't work.

And let's consider another group who had a bad public image, but has cleaned it up to avoid more restrictions - firearms enthusiasts. We actually do have a constitutional right, and we still have trouble. Those of us who enjoy shooting sports have learned that the sight of a firearm is offensive to some people, and every offended person is a vote for a gun grabber. So we got smart. We keep the guns out of sight, our shooting ranges out of hearing, and we don't even talk about guns to anyone until we're sure they are cool about the subject. No point in creating votes against us. You people who trailer your mud spattered ATV's home might want to think about that - you probably create a dozen votes for legislators willing to close trails every time you do that. It may be your right, but is it wise? Wash it off before going home. It's good politics.

Hatfield-McCoy is another matter entirely. It's about a three hour drive from my home. H-M brings direct economic benefits to an impoverished area, and a thriving cottage industry has sprung up to support the people coming in to use the trails. Note that it's not just ATV trails, there are horse and mountain bike trails as well. And the trail system is policed effectively, with maintained trails of varying degrees of difficulty. The trails are also run over land owned by coal companies, and will probably be strip mined some day, so the land was otherwise empty and uninhabited. This has spread into Eastern KY as well, more trails are opening up there. Yes, this could be a trend for the future, but there isnt' that much land owned by coal companies.

As a contrast, consider the opposite, another riding area in KY known as Livingston, which is an unmanaged set of trails. For a while, it was a good riding place, but the last time I went there (last year) it was overrun with kids, dangerous riding, mud everywhere, loud mufflers, drinking, fights, and trash. My own experience was similar. I used to let locals ride the three miles of rough trails on my rather craggy farm, pretty challenging even for a rock crawler like my Arctic Cat 500i, but then they started trashing the place, cutting trails straight up the side of hills, coming through with loud mufflers late at night, leaving junk behind, so up went the fences. I don't have time for that.

Back to the USFS managed forests... getting the support of environmentalists is not that hard - both groups want the same basic thing, which is to enjoy the woods in their unspoiled condition. Riders have to prove to the enviros that they won't damage the forest, and then lend support to keeping the forest in it's original condition. If the alternative to clear cutting is a couple of well maintained trails and the economic benefits from riders spending money nearby, the environmentalists may be open to a mutually beneficial arrangement. Riders might have to install the super quiet mufflers, but I'd have no problem doing that if it meant a clean, erosion free 200 mile long trail with fuel and food stops every 50 or so miles. Wouldn't that just be the cat's meow?

Come on, people. You may have to compromise by quieting the machines down and forgoing mud holes, but it's better than more restrictions and closures. The trend today is towards loss of trails, and for good reason. Too many trails have been turned into a mess. Mature, adult riders need to band together and learn to work with the system. Fighting it with slogans and contempt clearly isn't getting the job done.

 

Dragginbutt makes many good points as do each of the folks responding to this thread. I could provide links but that would only direct folks to the places I look and the region I ride in. Take a look at the states the people are sending messages from. They are coast to coast and border to border. Each has their own issues and challenges. I would much rather generate a discussion and cause someone to do their own research than to simply provide access to my personal bias. JohnO believes support from environmentalists is easy to come by. I suspect John has perhaps not had much experience in that arena or perhaps those in Kentucky are of a milder breed than found in the Northwest. The question of access that I am addressing goes beyone 2 wheelers, 4 wheelers, sleds, cars, pickups, horses, or any other type of transportation either for work or recreation. It has nothing to do with the quality of the user or user group involved. In general access to public lands for any use is in serious jeopardy. Dragginbutt lives in the area that most of these restrictive policies of lockup and lockout come from. With the political climate of today the chances of getting anything reversed or getting anything near to common sense included in the management planning is nonexistant. Those opposing access will use trash riders or users as a tool to accoplish their goals because they know that if access is denied there will be no users at all.
There are still places in this area than can be travelled with no contact with others, no trails, no trash, no trouble. My wife and I use these areas often but leave no trace. It is my right to travel these areas, not a privelage or right granted by government but a personal right. It is after all, public land. There are responsibilities that come with this use. They are not responsibilities mandated or directed by government but are personal within myself. Those of you reading this thread are part of a very small, select, group of individuals that tend to do things not common in the general public. Because of that you are suspect and criticized............Tass

 

[quote]
Originally posted by: georged
[quote]
"...Make no mistake, due to land and liability insurance costs, large pay-to-ride ATV parks are not in the future. Public and private lands are it...."

One could make the point for the fairly recent resurgence of huge areas like Windrock and Hatfield McCoy with two caveats.
Windrock is a "safety free zone" that every single hypocrite in the atv community who preaches the concept....WON'T **DARE** COMMENT ON...

with the other dirty little secret regarding Hatfield McCoy being....THE VAST MAJORITY OF THIS AREA'S LOCAL RIDING POPULATION HAD <U>NOTHING</U> TO DO WITH ITS INCEPTION AND <U>STILL</U> AREN'T INVOLVED IN MAKING IT A VIABLE CONCEPT TODAY (this is where I take great exception to the folks who HAVE worked very hard on this project despite local pressures and why I have financially supported any group who <U>will</U> PROUDLY fly the H/M banner).

"....Unless the sport does police itself, a majority of private landowners will take my attitude, no riders because it's way too much hassle in attempting to sort out responsible individuals who respect their privilege from the flakes after the fact...."

The problem being that they haven't and <U>won't</U>...I can't even get my state riding club up here to take responsibility for the fact that they didn't partner with law enforcement before they ventured out into a newly opened area. Tickets were issued and what attitude did these 'responsible' riders take?
"Why 'by god'...the #$%^* "DNR" are all just a bunch of jackbooted 'thugs'....and 'by god' we're going to show the younger kids in this club how not only you deal with these people...but make damn sure make sure that they never BOTHER <U>us</U> again!.."

"...And public opinion against destructive ATV activities will force public officials to increase restrictions on public land because they don't have the funding to properly police/and/or repair them. As a taxpayer and voter, I'll support severe, additional restrictions long before I ever even consider increasing my tax burden to facilitate irresponsible riders...."

This is your average citizen, folks....and I can't say that I blame him.[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-sad.gif[/img] You lay down with the dogs(which is what all this "I don't want to hurt my buddy's feelings" silence crap from everybody in the atv community is all about)...you're sure as hell certain to get fleas.

 

[quote]
Originally posted by: JohnO
"...I used to let locals ride the three miles of rough trails on my rather craggy farm, pretty challenging even for a rock crawler like my Arctic Cat 500i, but then they started trashing the place, cutting trails straight up the side of hills, coming through with loud mufflers late at night, leaving junk behind, so up went the fences. I don't have time for that...."

Amen. If the atv community can't get past the simplest of issues regarding simple decent human conduct....there is no way in heck they will ever be perceived as being competent enough to tackle issues such as sound, safety, enforcement or even soil management.
As I've said a thousand times before...if you can't just go up and tell your Uncle Billy Bob to his face that he's a drunk and is ruining your family get-togethers...you're sure to have another Peyton Place moment come this Christmas.

"...Back to the USFS managed forests... getting the support of environmentalists is not that hard - both groups want the same basic thing, which is to enjoy the woods in their unspoiled condition. Riders have to prove to the enviros that they won't damage the forest, and then lend support to keeping the forest in it's original condition...."

Nah, these guys would rather fill these forums up with how they hate every one of these @#$% environmentalists and boy how it sure does feel good to 'talk' about doing so....instead of getting involved enough to have the opportunity to shake one of their hands LIKE A MAN.
It's no different than their relationship with law enforcement...every officer is out to 'get them'....unless he/she either lets you off...or you can run away fast enough to make their view of the atv community a mute point anyways.

"....If the alternative to clear cutting is a couple of well maintained trails and the economic benefits from riders spending money nearby, the environmentalists may be open to a mutually beneficial arrangement. Riders might have to install the super quiet mufflers, but I'd have no problem doing that if it meant a clean, erosion free 200 mile long trail with fuel and food stops every 50 or so miles. Wouldn't that just be the cat's meow?..."

We are 'supposedly' working with the people who clear cut to build new trails here in Michigan; yet the motorcyclists continue to block the proper maintenance of those same new (and definitely the older ones they maintain presently) trails for the simple fact that privatized modern maintenance equipment brings the end of their cash cow (maintaining the largest trail system in the nation with less than 50" machinery.

The problem here is that we have a marriage of convenience between the USFS and these motorcyclists. These cyclists are backed by the most powerful group in motorized recreation... people who will switch sides in a second to fight AGAIST light four wheeled recreation...when it suits them. I have been trying,for going on 7 years now, to pin these people down as to what the concept of a true multi-use trail system actually "looks" like or how many miles of trails they think should FOREVER be set aside for them and them only. The USFS doesn't want us on these lands....and you can plainly witness these arrogant motorcyclists constantly whispering in their ear about how a continued exclusive partnership with them and them only...keeps this modern maintenance equipment; the increased widths needed to operate it and all these light 4-wheeled vehicles...effectively OFF the very land they didn't want us on anyways. Try to properly maintain (another issue they don't want to talk about unless they can twist the issue to their favor) a trail to 50" inch USFS width standards with a pull behind rake and a tractor?....you get less people on the trail and more people (as in Michigan) traveling to other states with the pay-to-plays (which is just 'fine' with them [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img] ).

 

Great thread, Tass and you are right....anybody who stands up and says anything regarding these issues beyond the p.c. manner in which these people expect you to bring them forward...will be ostracized.

"Doublespeakers" (as I call 'em) realize the importance of filling any and all correspondence to you with the kind of nonsense which <u>forces</u> you to ask the same question 3 or 4 times. This buys them <u>time</u>...<u>their best friend.
</u>
The only conversation which actually lights a fire under these people is the one concerning the fact that they one day might have to go home and tell their wife why they just lost their job. And believe me, some of these public servants are arrogant enough to believe that there isn't a person or organization on this earth that will ever cause that conversation to happen.(hence the treatment we receive through our unwillingness to stand up and ask questions regarding anything which affects us ).

It's that simple.

 

QUOTE BY BLACKBALLED**The problem being that they haven't and won't...I can't even get my state riding club up here to take responsibility for the fact that they didn't partner with law enforcement before they ventured out into a newly opened area. Tickets were issued and what attitude did these 'responsible' riders take?
"Why 'by god'...the #$%^* "DNR" are all just a bunch of jackbooted 'thugs'....and 'by god' we're going to show the younger kids in this club how not only you deal with these people...but make damn sure make sure that they never BOTHER us again.END OF QUOTE**

I was going to stay out of this because BB is so full of -hit,the stuff is coming thru the computer screen..But I will not allow such a jackass remark to be made about the club that I support.

First and foremost,what BB seems to forget to tell you folks is that the DNR was basically the only real unit of OPPOSITION in the County board meetings,that opposed the openings of County roadways in the Lower Pennisula of Michigan,for use by ORVs.Everybody else saw the economic impact that these County road openings could and would have on the economic developement of their own County,EXCEPT the DNR...So before BB mis-informs you guys that the club did not want to PARTNER WITH the DNR,let me explain to you that it was in fact,the DNR that did'nt want to work WITH the user groups.And the incidence that BB refers to was nothing more than clear cut retaliation by the DNR because they did'nt get their way when it come to these same roadway openings.And what BB so elequently forgets to mention is that most all the tickects that were issued in the area he speaks of,were DROPPED.

Our club had a meeting in Rose City in Michigan on October the 1st of this year.The MAYOR and the CHEIF of POLICE were present at this meeting.They both endlessly THANKED our club for assisting in getting their County as a OPENED County for ORVs..They said the economic impact that this new ordinance brought forth to their community was mirrored by ALL the bussinesses in the community.The Cheif even went as far to say that the FEW tickets issued,were LESS THAN they were when the County did not have the new ordinance.He said that a few ORV issue's were developed by the LOCALs and not those from other area's of the State.He recommended that other surrounding area's/counties follow the same ordinance that his County has.

So much for ANY credability in BB Quote.

 

This was turning into an interesting discussion - can we agree that personality conflicts will make no positive contribution to it? We need to unite and face a serious problem together, not bite at each other.

An essential point needs to be made here. Trails are being closed at an alarming rate - clearly there is a problem, and it is getting worse. Can this be reversed?

If it's private land, then the economic benefits will either sell or not sell the idea. In some fortunate areas, such as Hatfield-McCoy, there is unused land available, and an impoverished area that welcomes the additional income. Document these cases thoroughly for later presentation, and try to get someone with experience in business presentations to assist. Communities will take you more seriously if you have done your homework. If you just say - it worked here - that doesn't carry much weight. If you can show how much money a trail brought in, they may start to listen. Asking for free access won't succeed in very many places - too many of us landowners have already had bad experiences with various off road vehicles on our property to let just anyone in for any reason. And unlike sleds, atv's can disrupt the land, even when operated carefully. So this won't be as easy as the sled clubs had it.

If it's public land, then political action is necessary. I've come into contact with USFS people, and I can guarantee you that they are not out to get ATV riders, any more than they are out to get rock climbers or loggers, or any other group that has had their activities restricted. They aren't out to get anyone. They are simply responding to their bosses, Congress, and it's bosses - the voters. It is important to understand that, so that you also understand what action needs to take place, and understand what shouldn't be done. Condeming USFS people as evil just ticks off the very people you want to persuade, and it paints you as unrealistic and immature. Worse than that, it doesn't get you access. You may run into unreasonable individuals in the organization, which just means that you have to keep on working through the system until you get past that person. If you start condeming the system, the system will reject you, and the trail will still be closed.

I don't hold that environmentalists will be an easy sell, just that they share common interests with responsible riders, and at this time, they are a chief source of opposition. If you can just get them to stop actively opposing you at every turn, you've won a major victory. Their chief reasons seem to be: lots of noise, which can be solved with the ultra quiet mufflers, erosion and silt in streams which can be overcome by building good trails and maintaining them, and disruption of wildlife, which can be overcome by staying on the trails and not making new ones. If you're a responsible rider, you shouldn't have a problem with any of that. If you aren't a responsible rider, then you are part of the problem. Have any of you actually gone to local environmental groups and shown them what a well maintained trail looks like, and how quiet an atv can be? It's worth a try. Atv riders don't have the luxury of picking and choosing who they will be allied with. Right now, they are a minority, so they need support wherever it can be found. Politics makes strange bedfellows, but you get help wherever you can find it. If you are being robbed, do you ask the person on the 911 line what church they go to before telling them your problem?

What I've heard so far from a lot of atv riders is a confrontational attitude - everyone else is evil, or an unrealistic attitude - it's my right. It's pretty clear that isn't working, as access is being lost, not gained. Now, you can just give up and shout slogans while more trails are closed. Have fun polishing that quad in the garage, because that's where it's going to be for a while. Or, you can find out what the major objections are, see if they can be mitigated, look at how other groups have faced the same problems and overcome them, clean up the image, make whatever compromises have to be made, and try to reverse the trend. And clean up the image - right now, atv's are regarded as land destroyers and child killers, hardly the sort of thing the average person will support in national forests.

I'm saying that this is possible. I'm not saying that it will be easy.

 

Far to many enviro folks feel that THEY are the OWNERS of the forests,and quite frankly,they dont OWN any more of it than I do..Far to many of the accusations from the enviro groups against ORV users is for their own gains,with their REAL AGENDA,being directed at closing off ANY type of motorized use to ANYTHING with an engine in it,within the forests of the USA. They come up with false reports for injuries,false reports of enviro damage,they'll want to close down 1000s of acre's of forest land because they spotted some 16 legged,one eyed,backward walking,rare form of habitant on this land,and now want to turn the entire land into a protected forest for the preservation of some distant critter that they'll use for an excuse to close that forest down to.

I join clubs that support safe and responsable riding,lend a helping hand in trail maintenance,and I also get involved politically.