The cyclists accused this legislation as being "too expensive" (among other things including <u>playing</u> <u>the</u> '<u>environmental</u>' <u>card</u> presented by the DNR also) while at the same time proposing that we increase fees on the present system through a formula which DECREASED the percentage taken out of every sticker sold presently earmarked for maintenance, enforcement and every other orv program besides the training dollars going right into <u>your</u> pocket.....which they (and you) proposed that we <u>triple</u>.

And what was the main question that these cyclists had when this widening was proposed?

Why by gosh WHO would do the work instead of them!!! (?)

The answer being NOT the #1 grant sponsor on the trail system presently (to the tune of almost 200 grand) YET MORE THAN LIKELY a private for-profit company with the kind of equipment <u>needed</u> to maintain over 3,000 miles of trails PROPERLY in the first place.

Again, please don't ask me about funding formulas after the exact same question put to you <u>umpteen</u> times only results in verbal attacks and absolutely nothing else of substance regarding this same selfishly driven proposal.

 

I really thought the atv's had more access than that. True, with those sort of numbers, you do deserve to have more access than that. And I take my hat off to all of those who actually are trying to make that a reality.

But, (just so you know where to start the quote at bb) I don't think that taking away trails from the cyclist i.e. adding 750 new miles for atv access, and we'll also reduce cycle trails by x amount, will work either.

Not going to suggest any certain percentages, but I can see taking some of the old cycle trails and converting them to atv. But not without adding some new cycle trails too.

There is a compromise to be had, but only by those that are willing to compromise.

 

YOU make the claim that the NEW LEGISLATION that was shut down by the cyclist was suppose to ---BUILD/FIX/PAY for a multi-use trail system.PROVE to user's in here HOW this new Legislation was suppose to BUILD/FIX/PAY for this multi-use trail system.


QUOTE*
proposing that we increase fees on the present system through a formula which DECREASED the percentage taken out of every sticker sold earmarked for maintenance, enforcement and every other orv program besides the training dollars going right into your pocket.....which they (and you) proposed that we triple
END OF QUOTE*

Again, your nothing but a big UNINFORMED hot bag of air.. NOTHING in the above quote is true.Im wondering how much more of this embarrassment you can muster.Do you live in some sort of FAIRYLAND and just think this BS up overnight? AGAIN,please tell the folks in this forum HOW THE TRAINING DOLLARS MAKE IT INTO MY POCKETS!

 

The problem is that I could care less if the same people preventing true multi-use vs non-representive "me-only" trails from becoming a reality like everywhere else in this country....are actually the same people helping you shove through the TRIPLING of subsidized training dollars <U>at</U> <U>the</U> <U>expense</U> of our other programs.

These guys might want to meet in secret and not tell us what went on at these public meetings that the (all honorable) "DNR" can only report back to us on; yet there comes a time when the facts need to be laid out here and in no uncertain terms.

 

Id like to hear this also.

 

Someone tell me why the cycle's deserve their own trails again? Seems to me that them having their own trail is a waste.

 

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/No...s_149970_7.pdf (page 2 under orv safety education).

I just love it how every one of you guys expect me to answer every one of your darn questions....yet feel absolutely NO obligation to answer or even comment on the secretive crap being dealt out here by anybody on two wheels or their red-headed 4-wheeled stepchildren.

 

We've been waiting for MONTHS now to find out how these training dollars OR 'tripled' training dollars make it into MY pockets?

BB's *** is backed into a wall and he wont give you an answer to this because he knows what he says cannot be backed by ANY facts,just his usual hot air tactics.

 

I just went to the minutes of the ORV Board metting that BB has highlighted and there is NOTHING in their that indicates that MY training program is subsidized by the TRIPLING of these ORV dollars,or that even ONE PENNY of my ORV safety program is subsidized by ORV sticker monies.

Again---more HOT AIR!

 

Why is it a waste for a percentage of trails to be for m/c's? They do have some of the registration dollars dont they? Not to mention the many years of paying their dues with donated time to the trail system.