Originally posted by:Dragginbutt"
"...So Ok I may be a simpleton here, but why are you not upgrading the trails to the wider specification so they can be used by both groups?..."

I can't thank you enough for that one, DB.
These cyclists have not only fought every widening bill to ever come down the pipe....they don't have or want the type of equipment needed to bust out huge areas like these 100 miles...with the kicker being that they would LOSE the grant mpney being paid to them presently to make certain that these trails are maintained all for themselves!
This entire thread is no more complicated than what you have simply stated above and as you can see...we're talking massive mileage here on just ONE trail system...the kind of mileage that most of the members on this forum...would KILL FOR in a second! (if their noses weren't stuck so far up these cyclists butts that they couldn't see or talk; as they are here in Michigan).

"....It seems to me, that the trails would be safer for all concerned, and they would have a higher usage rate too...."

The only machines these guys want using their "god-given cycle trails" trails is their own and anybody on here need look no further than my signature to verify same (these guys don't get secret term extensions and hold secret meetings because their all about the type of simple 'multi-use' trail systems that are in use in every other area of the country).

"...Safety is a good thing.. and less damage would result because all wheels would be on the trail....."

We've got even ATV "accessible" trail systems spread all over this state maintained by these goofs that you can barely fit your quad down. Parents have simply started to take their children off-state or even worse OFF TRAIL in places like the U.P. or out-of-state to put an end their kids getting the handlebars jerked out of their hand each and every time they ride. Again, this is all about these city slicker suburbanites abandoning the proper widening/maintenance of this old system while they cream their jeans over building this pay-to-play closer to home (Michigan is a big state which relies on us southern residents to go north and recreate...not stay home and build trails in suburbia while 3,000 miles of trail experience a big sucking sound of revenue for the benefit of city boys.
what has happened. I have never met a 4-wheeled enthusiast in my life who would not only begrudge these cyclists right to ride the same trails we do; but possibly even work to build PARALLEL trails right beside them.
As far as these motorcyclists?
I've never met a one who wasn't cockier than the day was long or felt that God himself came up with the idea of massive two-wheeled non-parallel <u>exclusive</u> trail systems.

"...The problem is that there really should be only one standard for both... and elitism <u>should</u> <u>go</u> <u>by</u> <u>the</u> <u>wayside</u>...."

Tell me why we don't allow the Amish (who built many of the roads I see today in my neck of the woods) to have exclusive use of the roads that they busted out...yet we gladly allow them to use the same roads which benefit both them and us. Your term "elitsts" is smack dab on the money in <u>my</u> book; with the worst part being that every one of these guys try to pass themselves off every day as being just the opposite ("well, we worked on this trail or that...just you don't TOUCH by god this 100 miles here or "our" 100 miles there!).

".If the DNR had any common sense, they would mandate that and eliminate this argument once and for all... I am sure it would make their life a whole lot easier.."

It would make life easier for the bulk of this community...yet one has to realize that not only do these cyclists care less about the rest of us...they and these largely tree-hugging DNR personnel have struck somewhat of an 'uneasy' alliance.
If the goofs you've witnessed in this thread can keep guys like myself from going to Lansing; getting in BOTH of their faces and asking the same excellent questions you just penned above?....why not shower them with every "convenience" at their disposal?
What would a greenie prefer?....Hardly anybody going down these cycle trails year-to-year with very little impact...or finally just 'giving up' to allow the bulk of our fellow citizens....to properly access their god-given right to this land; as they should?.
Neither one of them care for 4-wheelers in the least....the cyclists because their days are numbered operating like they were King Poop on all these 100's of miles of exclusive trails....the DNR because most feel our machines are akin to the devil himself and "rape" the countryside (which they do when you build 3,000 mile systems while refusing to use the equipment needed to maintain them properly; meanwhile allowing sticker money to be funneled into new big city riding areas that siphon these funds even further).
Getting past the fact that these cyclists will lose all their volunteer grant money when these trails are (probably not in my lifetime) simply widened and maintained by modern equipment....the DNR has a stake in this also.
Why do we need some guy in the DNR "evaluating" all these different orv club groups competing to use chainsaws and sickles.....when a FOR PROFIT heavy equipment entity....does the same job BETTER...and does it the same exact way each and every time they go down the trail?
How many people and how much time do my DNR personnel have to spend....overseeing THAT?

These people are ALL desperately hanging on to the way things "used to be" here in Michigan; which is vividly illustrated by the goof who penned this recent map and used to charge parents to sit in on their kid's training classes.
What do you think was <u>required</u> before you attended his club meetings and even if you were a member?...why you had to be approved to attend....in the first place!

I'm telling you....you couldn't come up with this cast of characters if you wrote the story yourself. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-sad.gif[/img]

 

Anything that makes it easier to traverse the trail will increase speeds. Not that some ATVs would be safer with a wider trail, as they certainly would be. Going from a 2 foot wide trail to a 4 foot wide trail results in much higher speeds for bikes. It's easiest to see this in action for both ATVs and cycles when comparing the speeds on a ORV Trail (50") and an ORV Route (72"). Anyone who has ridden either a few times with other traffic will attest to this.

Perhaps with what you are accustomed to seeing. In Michigan it's standard practice to cut the handlebars down to ~30" in width. That's only if you are riding trails.


Maintenance dollars are the same for either width of trail. 95% of the existing trails were put in, for free, from Enduro trail (trail made by running a cycle enduro event through the area). Cost to cut a 50" swath through the forest is more than a 24" swath, but the majority of new trail put on the ground in recent years has been 50" ATV trail. It's safe to say 98% of our trail system is old trail, there is not much new trail being put in, but we are losing trail in some areas at a rate greater than is being put back in.

Yes, maintenance contracts to maintain the existing trails. Unrelated to new trail. The new trail put down in recent years have been done for free by volunteers (most of the recent stuff was not enduro trail, but 50" from it's inception).

Yes, I'd agree. I'm not aware of such recommendations being made.

There have been 2 bits of legislation proposed over the past few years to widen the trails here in Michigan to 60" (proposed by a Polaris lobby group and an Argo lobby group, not by ATV or cycle clubs here in the State). On both of those bills, the DNR was opposed to the project primarily based on cost. Their estimates put it in the millions of dollars range and that was using the "cheap labor" available to them through grant sponsors.

 

Blackballed wrote:

"The only machines these guys want using their "god-given cycle trails" trails is their own... "

Are the motorcycle singletrack trails in Michigan closed to mountain bikes? If not, do mountain bikers use them and help with maintenance?

Just curious... I'm not from Michigan, and haven't ridden there, so I'm not trying to influence your State's trail management.

But in the west, there are a lot of motorcycle singletrack trails (1'-2' wide, often with terrain and obstacles that prevent ATV use) on USDA Forest Service lands that are also used by mountain bikers, horsemen, and hikers. There are also a lot of 50" ATV trails that are also open to motorcycles and non-motorized users, as well as low-standard forest roads open to full-sized vehicles, RUVs, ATVs, motorcycles, and non-motorized users. There are non-motorized trails open to mountain bikers, horsemen, and hikers, primitive trails (often in designated Wilderness areas) that prohibit mountain bikes, and "interpretive" or other trails only open to hikers. The only activity that's allowed everywhere is hiking, which is generally not even restricted to trails.

All of the mountain bikers I've talked with prefer singletrack trails, much for the same reason that motorcyclists prefer singletrack trails with challenging natural features. They generally aren't opposed to ATV use, it's just that they prefer the challenge of narrow width and obstacles that simply can't be ridden on an ATV. They do start to dislike ATVs when irresponsible ATV riders try to use these trails (despite the singletrack trails being closed to ATVs, and numerous ATV trails and roads in the area) because ATVs create multiple braids to bypass obstacles (often causing serious errosion problems), make a trough where outslope drainage had worked for years -- more errosion, scrub away vegatation from the downslope side -- destabilizing the slope and causing tread slough-away, scrub the backslope into a wall, and so on, which not only ruins the trail and singletrack experience, but makes the trail a candidate for complete closure due to resource problems.

Many ATV riders I've talked with prefer 50" ATV trails to roads, and the more experienced ATV riders prefer more rugged rather then preened trials. So I work to provide these opportunities too, for a variety of challenge levels, loop lengths, and access to vistas and sites of historical interest.

Likewise, the serious 4WD enthusiast wants rugged low standard roads, or jeep roads, that a regular soccer-mom type SUV would have a difficult time on (even if it's 4WD), and there's no way a passenger car could get through. I work to also keep these opportunites.

Then there's the higher standard forest road system that's needed for administrative purposes and public access for hunting, fishing, sightseeing, camping, and so on. These vary from not-too-rugged 4WD roads to level 4 smooth gravel roads that passenger cars can safely use.

The challenge I see is best meeting the desired experience and needs of the most users and user groups. To me, that doesn't mean making everything accessible to all users. To help clarify: if every motorized trail and road was built and maintained to level 4 standards for passenger cars, the desired experience of almost all OHV users -- motorcycle, ATV, and full-sized 4WD (which includes RUVs) -- is not met. However, if you're looking at access issues strictly from a "all motorized routes should allow all motorized vehicle classes" view, without regard for user preference, you come up with everything being level 4 road... as well as reduced mileage because it costs a lot more to construct and maintain a level 4 road.

Coming up with travel systems that best meets everyone needs isn't easy, especially in regions where OHV use is very limited, and maybe that's the case in Michigan. But to even start this type of trail/road system, it requires some give and take from all the user groups, and an understanding and acceptance of what other user groups need for their desired recreation experience. And that doesn't mean completely eliminating the type of experience sought by a very significant, but maybe not the largest, user group. Oh, and FWIW, if all mechanized two-wheeled trail users are lumped, this becomes a pretty significant group.

Well... that's just my opinion, take it with however many grains of salt you want, or ignore it completely.

 

They are not closed to non-motorized use. The soil type differs greatly between Idaho and Michigan, generally speaking, which puts a slight twist to this. Most of the ORV trails are very sandy. Deep, soft sand is not normally conducive to enjoyable mountain biking. There are very few trails in Michigan that are single track and have a relatively stable soil base ie where a mountain biker would want to ride. I'm not aware of any mountain biking group working with or helping to support/maintain motorized trails here.

Would agree with the rest of your post.[/quote]

 

I know this following comment wont be popular with Dick or Jeramey,but it does represent how I feel about widening the current trails.I happend to be one person that supported widening our current trails to a 60 inch width,especially when you factor in the size of ATVs that are made today and the amount of ATV use on the current trail system.PLUS factor in that even most of our 50 inch trail is not even close to the 50 inch spec.

I do NOT buy into the idealism that a wider trail will make for an unsafe trail because your speed will increase as the width of the trail is widened. I mean, whatever happend to the idea of operating your ORV at a rate of speed that is proper and prudent for exsisting trail conditions?If YOU choose to go around a blind corner at a unsafe speed and run head-on into a Rhino, thats YOUR fault,I dont care WHAT width the trail is.

The time is well over-due to widen these trails in Michigan. And I also think we need to at least take a LOOK at OUTSOURCING these trail maintenace jobs to profit companies. I have spoke with several lawn care bussinesses in the past that have expressed an interest in doing this maintenance..

No one seems ready to want to even listen to out-sourcing though.

 

Muddy, you deserve a handshake and a great big bear hug on that one.... Exactly my point. All you have to do is to look at the various large scale systems we have in the country to see the wisdom of this... If you look at Hatfield/McCoy, Paiute trail in Utah, or the Silver country trail systems, one thing stands out.. They are trail systems that are multi use, and attract a great deal more people, many of which are novice riders. It requires safer construction methods for sure, but believe me, the people coming are there for scenery, and wildlife, and the experience that each area provides.. and they do it safely, so that grandma, and grandson can enjoy the trip together.

The end result of all this is plain dollars and cents. You can clearly see the economic result to the areas where the masses going. In areas where there were no jobs, and poverty.. you now see economic resurgence. Tax dollars are being generated, and whole new industries are popping up.

Will it ruin the riding experience? Well maybe... I like to think of it as evolving... but the most important thing is that you can still find enjoyment... and recreation.. and that is the important thing here. The sport is evolving.. and our job is to foster that by cooperation and assistance and advice to the agencies responsible for the program.

I can't imagine the costs that the DNR are projecting to be anywhere near accurate.. and it sounds like a tap dance to me....With modern equipment available today, you can bust through a 60 inch trail pretty easily.. one that can be regularly groomed and maintained too. Heck, all you have to do is look at what is available in machinery to know that. I can get a Kubota excavator with adjustable track between 36 and 50 inches or so... even smaller if I need it. Come on, that argument is invalid. There are companies that produce a pull behind grader that can be pulled by an ATV... You can get center dump trailers that can do the same thing too....for laying base materials... The list is endless.

Even more important is companies like Nichols selling pull behind rescue trailers etc... I can't tell you how many times that would be usefull....

So yeah, I still stick to my guns on wider trails. 60 inches would be ideal.. so our RUV brothers can join us... and open the woods to even more enthusiasts that could not ride otherwise... Handicapped riders is one area that could use a boost.

As for speed.. well enforce a limit... Cutting bars to be able to ride sounds a bit extreme to me. If your trails were better maintained, you would not run th erisk of having the bars jerked out in the first place...

 

One excuse the folks used to turn down the 60 inch widening Bill here was that there are certain trucks made today that are under 60 inches in width and that nobody would want a truck on a 60 inch trail. So BIG DEAL---make the legal language state that vehicles weighing more than 1700lbs and are under the 60 inch width are not able to operate on this system and you eliminate this problem.

I also support a multi-use trail system,but there's a ton of red-tape involved to convince the powers that be,that this is a good idea for the overall current and future use of ORVs.

 

Well, I guess I dont know where I fall on this, I had previously sided with BB.
Being an Avid Biker, and frequent rider of the H/M trail system. I dont really see trail work being done.
With the H/M system, they seem more intent on blazing more trails and getting more folks there, instead of maintaining the trails they have. Most are far from safe, with near vertical drop offs on one side of the trail, a mere few inches from the trail, and I KNOW this orginization is bringing in money.
Once trail loops surpass the 20 mile length, It seems harder to keep them maintained. I believe what Is needed is folks responsible for sections of the trails, so the burden of upkeeping 100 + miles of trails doesnt fall on one group or person, even though they contract for it. I envision something like the Adopt a highway scheme going on now. Groups or individuals could contract with the county/State to maintain smaller sections of the trail, such as 5 mile lengths, etc.. If they fail in their obligation, then knock them off the contract and bring someone else in. Working like this, in many smaller groups would speed up, and also reduce the effort of widening the system, as well as lesson the financial pain by mixing volunteers with outsourcing.

 

By May 1 of 06, we should have some sort of answer regarding legislation that requested the DNR to present a plan with 25% more trail by 2008. If the 25% more is put on the ground, many of our problems will be eased. At present, we are trying to have 4 million user days on less than 3 square miles of designated use area.

In the proposed ORV Draft Plan, it makes mention of private contractors as a consideration.

There is one thing we do not know at present, how many injuries or fatalities we have on the trail, we know nothing about the circumstances surrounding them. We went through this very same thing on the ORV Task Force, no data! We are faced with it again.

As laymen, think we all agree, we do not need excessive speed on the trail.

No doubt, there are some pieces of equipment out there that can be used. Question is, at what productivity and expense to purchase, maintain, move around and who is going to operate it. Almost anybody can operate a dozer, but only a few are good at it. Some just wear out the machine and make a mess. We must remember, today we need it in X county, tomorrow we may need to haul it 150-200 miles, or do we buy multiple machines, put them in a region. Mini-excavator as mentioned, would do the work in many cases, but slow, expensive to buy, then you need a truck and trailer, about a $100,000 a pop. Or contract it out, how many excavating companies have a mini in their fleet? Snowmobile folks figure $150,000 for a tractor and groomer and they have several. But they have 250,000 users too and their sticker fee is higher.

We all agree, present system is broke and we need to make changes. IF we get the 25% more, we will need more budget as we will have hundreds of miles more trail to take care of. The one advantage it will give us, less use on some of the exisiting trail and maybe less maintenance required.

When we think of contracting the work out, we have to consider increased cost. One would have to believe, with private industry, in that cost comes the normal burden of employee's such as workmens comp, FICA, unemployment cost. Things we do not experiance with voulnteers. We must also consider the quility of work by a contractor with maybe no knowledge of ORV's and concerned about the bottom line, verses a user working with passion.

Linear trails is a fine idea, everything confined to one corridor, 2 wheeled, 4 wheeled and sleds. Done in just a few areas. This would give each group trail that would suit their interest. Doubtfull if we ever see this to any extent in Michigan because of terrain constraints.

Our first hurdle is the Draft Plan, along with that "Healthy Forest Initiative" and then the 25% more trail. For a mix, we have ORV Safety Training, 12 year old restrictions and a whole lot more.

 

Added expenses to outsource trail maintenence?

Maybe, but when I factor in that right now [and in the past] that nobody is held accountable for the severe shortcomings of current trail specs that we see when we ride on almost any trail in the State of Michigan,this in its self is a HUGE waste and mis-appropiation of our ORVs dollars as it stands. For years,grant sponsers been getting $$ to do these trails to a certain specification and most trails here today are not even close to their specifications of maintenance.

Who's fault is this? Well the blame can be directly pointed in the ORV trail techs corner in my opinion. We need these guys to do more than just drive to the trailhead parking lot and walk into the first 1/2 mile of the trail itself.They need to actually RIDE the ENTIRE trail before they approve the trail,however,this brings in yet another issue. If the trail is not approved than its suppose to be closed down until specs are met. So either approve the trail the way it is and at least folks can ride a half *** maintained trail or the other choice is to close it down,which nobody wants. So we put up with poorly maintained trails that are out of specs in an effort to keep them open.

Grant sponsers/volunteers for trail maintenance are very HARD to find,I've been thru this game on more occassions than I care to talk about.Our ORV dollars are being mis-used by many current sponsers,so WHY not TRY and outsource some of this trail work and see what happens? Im not saying its the ANSWER,but what we currently have does not work and im open minded enough to try something else in addition to what we currently have.