From the American Motorcycle Association's Vice-President and Legislative Director of District 14 (the largest motorcycle chapter in the nation concerning the largest trail system this country posesses:
[quote]
Originally posted by: BusyRider
"..MMRC:
"... We have strengh in numbers. That is the purpose of MMRC...."

We were outright shamed at an orv meeting over a year and a half ago into (supposedly) forming a motorized group that would encompass everybody....including the snowmobilers. This was brought up at one meeting and one meeting only; with the subject never to be discussed again in any formal or public manner.

Since then:

We've cornered one leader who supposedly represented light four-wheelers....causing same to immediately clam-up and some time later join a motorcycle group....

We questioned who we 'thought' might <U>lead</U> these same "mystery men" at the single most important commentary period for future orv use in the history of the system...his answer?...wellllll, uhhhhh, maybe they don't have anything to say! (further requests for their official commentary proved this through FOIA requests....when you're this arrogant...you sometimes aren't even smart enough to cover your ****).....

We asked the DNR about this same group. Their first response was to claim that they had never heard of them...their second was that they 'thought' they had a website (had to retract that one).... and their third ended up describing them as simply an "informal" group that they knew very little about. (well join the club, boys...these guys are out here telling us that they will never reveal who they even are!).

And lastly, we called on our good friends the snowmobilers.(who not only knew absolutely nothing about these people either....but were obviously not invited to the same party we were all told they would attend).
Not only do these guys sit back in amazement at how/why why we let these motorcyclists run roughshod over this 3,000 mile system (see Muddy's question earlier post regarding the sledder's advisory board v.s. ours that his cycle 'buddies' immediately shut him up regarding and refused to answer)..but they tend to get very interested in motorcyclists not keeping them informed of things like these 'extra' 750 miles of trails! (the <U>last</U> time this was done...snowmobile trails were simply turned into orv trails...and that was that!

So when you read things like Busy Rider's next few sentances...

"..MMRC is compiled from ORV user groups. We do have "friends" in other well publicly recognized organizations and we do work with them quite nicely. We are quite selective in who is involved, we need people who are assetts, not liabilitys... The most important thing here is "WE", not what is in it for me...."

...ask yourself why their red-headed step-child Muddy was immediately ignored when questioning why the sledders met 4 times in the space of a few months during the summer; while we had our meetings cancelled for six months....or why the sledders have had absolutely no problem publishing their contact information over all these years; while our board has promoted "studying" the issue for how long(?)...or why even current board members have refused to answer our requests for public commentary on any of this? (excluding the sherrif)...and you get the picture that "What is really going on in Michigan"...is so much more than these newly joined motorcyclists here on AtvConnection.....would choose to paint it.(I'm sorry, but if I've got to inform the single most important orv organization in this state in terms of revenue...that there will be 750 more miles of trail to be laid down...am I somehow lying about all this behind the scenes/pay no attention to the man behind the curtain CRAP that has been going on here?

Or is there SOMEBODY here who doesn't want the truth to get out regarding all of this....any more than a soon-to-be non-publicized DNR extension of their <U>hand-picked</U> term? [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-sad.gif[/img]

 

Blackballed Has there ever been any thought to making an ORV trail system in the Waterloo Recreation area? There is a year-round campground at Portage Lake, thousands of acres of land, and a prison boot camp that could provide labor to make trails, that would be readily accesible off I-94 and not too far from 127 or 23. Seems like it would make it very accessible to many metro areas, including yours.

 

Great, these are the bits of information that the average guy needs to know about when forming opinions. It would appear on the surface that a lot of planning has occurred and is in place then. I have always looked at MI as a model program because of the forsight given in their training programs, and the ability to "test up" in class. That is forward thinking that I wish the CPSC would study, and perhaps adopt int heir re-write/review currently underway.

I am especially impressed with the grooming program. Although some may complain, it is encouraging to find a program in place where the need for grooming is already acknowledged and funded.

The cost of equipment is high. And I would love to see more group participation in it's employment. Making the jump from private contractor to group use of the equipment would have serious pitfalls I can see. I assume that materials such as timbers, rock etc used in maintaining trails is available via some form of central sourcing? That may be an area where benefit can be gained if not...

Keep up the good work on this information... I think the average rider is starting to learn how to get this info, even though we may have had to wade through some muck to get to it... It is good to know that it is out there and available.

 

Dragginbutt,

The trail maintenance program is in two parts signage/brushing and grooming. All of this is done by non profit clubs, none of it is done by contractors. Material for the signage, ie. signs nails, posts, lag screws, is purchased by the DNR and each person responsible for a trail must make arrangments with the local district office to acquire the material needed when doing this maintenance. This material is purchased with the ORV sticker money. There are also several decks/boardwalks in the trail system where the trail crosses a potential area where seasonal errosion may occur. The people maintaining the trail where these are located are also responsable for the deck/boardwalk maintenance. Placing these decks/boardwalks is not an easy process, besides getting the material to where it needs to be, a Department of Environmental Quality permit must be obtained to be assured that wetlands are not being disturbed. Fortunatly when the first decks/boardwalks were designed by DNR engineers we received a blanket permit allowing us to build one of these where needed without reapplying for a new engineering permit as long as it did not change in design. Had this not been done every deck/boardwalk would also require a permit for a DNR engineer to design the deck/boardwalk. Then it would require a permit to repair said deck/boardwalk.

I would have to say in all our trail system is a users trail system. It is maintained by it's users and sometimes at a finanial loss but they continue to do it because they know we have the best available.

 

John,
In my opinion,the MMRC is none of the DNRs bussiness. If we wanted these guys involved in these MMRC meetings, we would have requested that they join us.Im not saying that something like this may not happen in the future of the MMRC,but currently,the DNR must first understand that they should be working WITH us, instead of AGAINST us. And until such a time florishes,IMO,its best we meet without them.

The snowmobilers and all their meetings?
The snowmobile guys have been organized for YEARS and are a well established group of users who are well represented. Do you think this happend OVERNIGHT?It took these guys MANY years and many hard fought battles to get where they are now.

The ORV users of this State have been so under established for so many years,and its our OWN fault.While our numbers are around 200K users this year, we have only began to SCRATCH the surface with organized users within CLUBs.

The more ORV clubs we have,the more representation we will have in the future.But you've got to be patient and quite demading things happen overnight.

 

[quote]
Originally posted by: BusyRider (American Motorcycle Association Vice-President/Legislative Director District 14; the largest in the country lobbying 2-wheeled legisaltion).
"...HB 5343: Hope you all realize, some who post on here, are not telling it exactly like it is. Was any mention made of the cost of widening about 1,000 miles of trail to 60" and who was going to do it?..."

Ya gotta love these motorcyclists "large and in charge" here in the great state of Michigan.

First it's all about "cost" (of course, no mention is ever made regarding the "cost" of laying down the 750 miles of new trail they have just recently back-door legislated) and then it's all about who is going to get 'the money' when/if any widening is ever even considered! (which in't very long considering this widening bill died in less than 29 hours!).
You've got to remember here, that these guys (currently) dominate primitive orv maintenance grants here in Michgan. And as we witness them turn red in the face <U>each and every time</U> the money/time saving concept of "privitization" rears its oh so 'ugly' head...you have to look down at the width of your hand (approx. 5 inches) hanging down from each side of your orv and ask yourself...is this really all about 'super-highway' widths and increased "costs" that any true multi-use system would naturally bear...or is it actually about CONTROL, MONEY and PUTTING A BIG 'OL CITY SLICKER PAY-TO-PLAY....WHERE <U>YOU</U> WANT IT?

I know I'm talking AMA/ATVA 'sacrilege' here (kind of like the AMA/ATVA guy who claims Dad can certainly 'choose' to wear a helmet....while his kid can't )...but 'bear with me'....[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img]

 

Blackballed, before I comment on this, I want to make sure I understand you correctly, and more importantly, your issues up there in Michigan (admittedly a long distance from me but Im always open to education on what to do or not do in my own area).

Is it correct, that your interest is represented FOR you, by a group of individuals who accept little or no input from the actual users themselves, and do not make themselves known or accesible for the end users , ie Light 4 wheeled users?

Is it correct, that you believe in privatilization of trail maintenance, where costs are kept lower, and equipment should meet standards as to keep cost lower?

 

[quote]
Originally posted by: ktmguy70
"...Blackballed, before I comment on this, I want to make sure I understand you correctly, and more importantly, your issues up there in Michigan (admittedly a long distance from me but Im always open to education on what to do or not do in my own area).Is it correct, that your interest is represented FOR you, by a group of individuals who accept little or no input from the actual users themselves..."

We show up once every 3 months (used to be every two, until these guys sat back and let the DNR take away our stenographer also, which was fine with them) and basically 'sit there' with our mouths shut, NO QUESTIONS ALLOWED until they call each one of us up for our 3 or 5 minutes to speak. (the DNR conveniently 'lost' my right to speak last time; which our chairman 'jumped all over'; allowing him to slam his gavel down less than half-way through my prepared remarks). I have spent 7 years trying to find the man who speaks for what light 4-wheelers represent and who is man enough to announce it publicly...must not be a lot of 'men' outside conservative West Michigan.

"...Is it correct, that you believe in privatilization of trail maintenance, where costs are kept lower, and equipment should meet standards as to keep cost lower?..."

Privatized trail maintenanc is such a "no-brainer" that it isn't funny. Besides the obvious standards you describe (imagine that, the entire trail being maintained the same way every time and on time)...it accomplishes the single most important thing that has eluded this community to date.

It gets the money OUT of <u>our</u> hands...therefore FORCING us to work <u>together</u> and BEHIND this modern machinery instead of competing over it or blocking the implimentation of same in the first place.(or as is the case here in much of Michigan?...it knocks down a notch or two those who would use any undo influence or relationship with the powers-that-be in these state-led maintenance programs... to seek and carry out their own agendas).

I'm a simple man, KTMguy....and there is no simpler solution than that.
The problem being, that this solution just shoots all to heck these cyclist's mantra/charade of "working with the rest of us" and on "even footing" for "multi-use" trails ....and that really gets their undies in a bunch. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img]

 

Thanks BB, I just wanted to make sure I was understanding what I THOUGHT I was understanding.

In essence, your requests seem right on the money. I suppose I dont understand the orginization that supposedly represents you being cloaked in such a state of secrecy.
I also dont see the point reducing the number of yearly meetings, as it provides less opportunity for review and comments.

As for Bikers/ATV's.. Im very much a part of both groups, and with 6 children I want to perserve every inch of legal riding areas I can. But being a member of both groups, I see different needs for both groups.
For Bikes, At least down this way, We want more single track that doesnt allow ATV use, simply because of the damage the ATVS cause to the trails, Mostly through abuse. Wet areas of trails are turned into 20' wide swamps.
For ATV's, we want more family friendly areas, where kids can ride their machines without fear of getting run over, More one way trails, etc..
I think its hard to get these two groups to work together 100%, But I also dont believe One group should overide the other.

As for Trail upkeep, Privatilization honestly makes sense, I can't seem to see how anyone would think differently. Competition alone would drive prices down, and keep equipment newer, reducing the cost to the end user.

BB, I think I would have lost patience with your situation long ago.. Kudos.

 

[quote]
Originally posted by: ktmguy70

...I dont understand the orginization that supposedly represents you being cloaked in such a state of secrecy.I also dont see the point reducing the number of yearly meetings, as it provides less opportunity for review and comments...."

I don't either and appreciate the encouragement.
We went 6 months without a word from anybody on orv issues here in Michigan this year and 8 weeks after that before the meeting minutes were published.
You'd think that these red-headed step child atvers would at least get excited about even the "appearance" of being viewed as accessible...yet you have to understand something about these big city boys and the lure of this city slicker riding area...when your motorcycle 'daddy' tells you to shut on up in regards to who you are, where you meet and what you do there...you do it.
Otherwise, Cycle Santa will make sure you ride the same crappy sytem we've all had to put up with for decades now.(I haven't visited TN. WV. WI and KY multiple times "just for the heck of it"...you can't ride what you don't properly maintain...no matter if you've got 3,000 or 30).