Now just which map are you trying to BS us on? The one in the book published by OffRoad Ventures, the one you linked to on the DNR site, or the map published by the DNR back in 1999? You've managed to paint a very confusing picture here referring to old, new and "latest" maps. None that I've seen from the DNR make ANY statement on maintenance standards. If OffRoad Ventures map do, that's what they decided to put in there, again I have nothing to do with them. I'll give you another opportunity to show us this "latest" map and show us why an ATV group would publish such an item.

Of course the one map you've not drug out yet is the mapbook I published for the CCC which is actually based on GPS recordings of the trail system. I suppose next you'll steal of copy of that (since it's not for sale) and accuse me of hiding trails since it's accurate compared to the ones the DNR and OR Ventures publishes are just hand-drawn interpretations.

Post a copy of the map you refer to so we can see what this conspiracy is all about.

Now that is funny! Not only are bikes the evil trail destroyers but their riders like riding whooped out trail?! If I'd only known this sooner, I certainly wouldn't have taken up riding Dual Sport 'cause all this time I thought I hated whooped out trail. Heck I've gone so far as to support grading and increasing the grading program. What was I thinking?! All this time I should have been out there with my little shovel digging them whoops deeper. You're one looney son of a gun.

 

[quote]
Originally posted by: 2TrakR
I love how this guy tries to "massage" history.
He attempts to paint this siutation as if these cyclists and their red-headed-step-child brown-nose atvers didn't simply 'introduce' these bills (they fought both of them tooth and nail)...while at the same time portraying the DNR as something akin to their "mother" advising them that needed widening is purely all about "cost".

"Cost" didn't figure in one bit when these guys recently succeeded in expanding the same system they wanted to shut down parts of over pure neglect....and "cost" didn't mean a damn thing when they proposed a big city riding area IN THE FACE OF OVER 3,000 MILES OF "OLD" TRAIL IN UNQUANTIFIABLE <U>NEGLECT</U>.

The only Michigan orv enthusiasts scared to death of the actual "cost' of maintaining what will now be a 3,750 mile trail system...are the very same people fighting the revelation of what it would cost to fix/maintain/widen what we've got NOW ...and this <U>before</U> they sneak in their city slicker riding area and include it in any and all future funding formulas!(further divying up the pie while always increasing funding share v.s. older 'spent' rural trails based on pure numbers alone).

I don't know how many of you can imagine what even our 3,000 mile 'old' system requires (in terms of annual funding) to be maintained to 21st century multi-use standards...but youcan guarantee there are two groups of people who don't give a damn.
First in line are these cyclists wishing they could not only have more trails to themselves...but pay only for the trails that they ride (no matter that they can ride them all)...and second are these Detroit suburbanites realizing that any attempt to actually be environmentally responsible while tallying these figures up...would kill any and all chances of their 'city' area actually being built in the first place.("I" have no problem with this system's existence after what we have is fixed, widened and properly maintained).

No other trail sytem in this country has been so mis-managed from the get-go...nor has anywhere near this amount of mileage ever been so non-chalantly unquantified in terms of sustainable annual costs using 21st century equipment. It's not only a travesty when considering the fact that most on here (including myself) can't even somuch as conceive the mileage we're referring to here...but the reality that back-door meetings and anonymous individuals are deciding the fate of same as we discuss this today.

Would "I" pay 3, 4, 5 times what I do now to fix what we have presently and start the kind of legacy I feel responsible for?...you bet.
Yet to convince even the average atver that you must "pay-to-play" when concerning massive mileage such as this while taking care of same in the kind of first-class manner which just may exclude arrogant folks like 2-Trakkr unwilling to 'give up' what they never owned?

That would take the kind of revolution one could only 'dream' of. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img]

 

MUDDY4LIFE wrote:

"... Dick ... was concerned about certain trucks being able to access the 60 inch trail that were under the 60 inch width mark. This is NOT a concern of mine since we could write laws to restrict the weight on these trails to 1700 lbs,which would ELIMINATE the truck issue on these newly cut 60 inch trails."

FWIW, there's an RUV that already exceeds that weight limit. The Kubota RTV900 is listed at 1808 lb.

There are also some RUVs that are already exceeding the 60" track width limit in stock form. And many users add offset wheels that push the track width on some RUVs up to 64" or so.

A stock 1995 Suzuki Samurai was about 61" wide and less than 2100 lb.

For enforcement, and to reduce confusion amongst users, it's better to have clearly defined lines. Aside from track width, commonly used ATV definitions for Federal and State agencies usually use other identifying features like handlebar steering (RUVs use steering wheels), straddle seating (RUVs use bench or bucket seats), low pressure tires that have a maximum wheel diameter of 12" (the Arctic Cat Prowler comes with 14", and 14" are often bought as aftermarket wheels), etc.

For enforcement, the restrictions should also be easy to reliably measure or observe in the field. And it's a lot easier to carry a tape measure, observe if the vehicle has handlebars, observe if the vehicle has straddle seating, and so on, than carrying a scale around on the trails, keep it calibrated, and do weight checks on the trail that'll hold up in court.

So where there's a clear line now, it seems like it'll become a little fuzzy with RUVs lumped in with ATVs, rather than RUVs lumped in with full-sized 4WDs -- as they generally are now. The manufacturers are completely quiet on this, and many dealers either don't know, or lie to potential RUV buyers, about the additional limitations on RUVs in order to make a sale. In my opinion, telling the truth wouldn't always lose the sale. If the buyer is OK with the restrictions, they buy anyway and are not surprised later. If they want to use the ATV trails, they'll buy an ATV or 2 instead of the RUV.

There are plently of dirt roads open to RUVs in my region, so I don't see the need to open all ATV trails to RUVs. Sometimes I do see manager wanting to convert jeep roads into ATV trails (if you know much about LRMPs and roadless area inventories, you may have some insight as to the why.). And I've been involved with travel planning processes where jeep roads were going to be designated as ATV trails, and succesfully had them kept as jeep roads so full-sized 4WD (including RUVs) would have continued access to those roads.

 

[quote]
Originally posted by: 2TrakR
[quote]

"...Post a copy of the map you refer to..."

(again later)

"...Post a copy of the map..."

I'm not in the habit of posting copyrighted material that you are obviously well aware of and have already professed no interest (above) in getting off the market (Nice try, though...and hey, you're almost getting to be as slick at those kind of things..as the author!). [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/img]

If the rest of this post is all you have for us (no facts in your defense; only frustrated sarcasm)....I think the membership of this forum can ascertain that you have once again failed to dispute anything brought forward here...and that your group's reputation is pretty well cemented with very little effort on anybody in this forum's part. (the truth is pretty darn easy to report and couldn't be any more plain than what is exhibited here).

But hey, don't take it personal...as there isn't a person on here who cares more about "our" trails than you do about "yours"...and therein lies the trajedy for both of us.

 

For pete's sake, Bill...these guys employed the only full-time advocate in the history of this sport with that money for years...and would be no 'better' than the rest of us if they lost not the money...but the power of embarrasing the DNR over same if they pulled out.

Again, the day these for-profits fire up their 21st century modern equipment and the DNR demands that every single orv group who gives a damn get behind same and clean up after them...is the same exact day these cocky bastards will show us all the finger and finally reveal what you already so blatantly observe NOW in this thread.

I have alot of respect for your view on widening trails.
Yet like these cancelled meetings that we once agreed upon and these bozos still feel is their right...you sometimes have to look a man in the eye and spread the word about what kind of man he is...rather than 'act' like he's creating the type of multi-use legacy that you can be proud of not having to defend.

 

Nice excuse. Too bad you can't back up your beef.

Here's the 2005 map:
http://www.dnr.state.mi.us/spatialda...v/tomahwkn.pdf

Here's the 1999 map:
http://www.gldsmc.org/public/tomahwkn_old.pdf

Both DNR maps, neither have the language you refer to. These are the maps the DNR has posted on the trail, on their web site for public consumption and available for order plus at DNR field offices.

Where's the conspiracy now?

All DNR maps:
http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7...8330--,00.html

 

(lol)..you really have to display links which you can actually access, my friend (see map #2)...yet I'll continue to take you by the hand and lead you back to the only map which matters here.

It is a map sold on the street (and recently 'hailed' by DNR personnel) showing the exact OPPOSITE of who the state OFFICIALLY indicates has the right to go down these trails (let alone fight to kick the bozos who m

We could care less if you brown-nosed the state into taking our symbols off the most recent official map...as it still indicates (in the legend)...that this was/is/will always be....a 50" trail!! (regardless of what anti-widening group maintains same trail presently or will soon be kicked OFF same when these savior for-profits with their 21st century equipment finally boot them out of the way).

What we don't care for (again)....is guys like yourself who come on here attempting to twist this issue around and make it any more "complicated" than what it truly is.

THERE IS A MAP BEING PUBLISHED RIGHT NOW WHICH DOES NOT RESEMBLE IN EVEN THE SLIGHTEST WAY..WHAT IS OFFICIALLY DISTRIBUTED.
JUST BECAUSE SAID MAP FAVORS <u>YOU</u> AND NOT THE MAJORITY OF THIS RIDING PUBLIC...IT <u>STILL</u> TAKES A MAN TO STAND UP <u>AGAINST</u> THIS.

This is no differrent than listening to you cry about the millions of dollars it will take to finally fix (widen) the over 3,000 miles we half-**** maintain presently....while you and your "super-secret' cycle boys meet behind closed doors to determine who will profit from even MORE mileage at this big city slicker riding area right outside your suburban back doors!.

If we're ALREADY "in the hole" maintaining a system that we can't even quantify the damage to presently (and I'm sorry, but I don't buy your fearless cycle leader's assertion that we simply close down 'raped atv trails' for 'study' while building "new" ones right beside them)...then don't insult the intelligence of this forum membership by playing the "map" game we witness above.

Folks, what this comes down to is simply being environmentally responsible/sustainably maintainable with what we have....v.s. bowing down to a bunch of opportunists who wish to cast thousands of mileage aside for nothing but their own damn benefit.
Everybody in this state with half a brain knows that the day this area is built right smack dab in the middle of our most popular gateway to the north...these cocky bastards will be claiming that "numbers served" <u>trumps</u> all efforts to find any kind of effective funding formula for the balance of this old and tired massive system.

There's a lot of talk on these forums about being "environmentally responsible" and "fixing what we have"....yet I can think of no other better example than what has been played out on this thread...which proves this talk...to be just <u>that</u>. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-sad.gif[/img]

 

I have Rondo's new map and I dont see anything confusing about the Tomahawk Motorcycle Trail.

It clearly indicates at the top left side of section 5.3 in his map book that this trail is designed for motorcycle use with small sections of ORV Route connecting trail A to trail B and than another ORV connector to trail C.

If you are a ATV user, you would not want to ride this type of a trail in the first place because of the width restrictions of 24 inches on the trail.It is clearly marked as an ORV TRAIL with a cycle on the confidence marker,which indicates to the user that the trail is only 24 inches on the ground.

 

You should learn to copy and paste properly. Links for all the maps works just fine.
2005:
http://www.dnr.state.mi.us/spatialda...v/tomahwkn.pdf
1999:
http://www.gldsmc.org/public/tomahwkn_old.pdf


No symbols were removed. Again, reference the two maps above for proof.

No where, ever, did the map state the trail was a 50" trail. Open to ORVs less than 50" in width, yes. Again, look at the map published by the DNR.

There are other maps being published that are inaccurate and don't even remotely provide information on what is legal for use on a given trail. Some are produced by Chamber of Commerce, some by snowmobile organizations. Why are you not fussing over those maps as well? Looks to me like you are the one with an agenda and it doesn't involve helping the average ORV operator.

Tell this board, Stears, just which trail(s) have you ridden with your Rhino or your old Sportsman? In Michigan, on the thousands of miles of trails available, which have you ridden and when were the most recent ones? I'd suspect someone with such an insightful view on how things are broken to have an even deeper first-hand knowledge of the trail system here.

 

Gee, Bill....why don't you call up these people http://www.dicksonslodge.com/index.html and tell them to quit sending their customers down the portions of this trail that are passable...and wait, while you're at it...give a ring up to the DNR staff responsible for this trail system and demand that they also <u>quit</u> taking their atvs down the same damn trail.

These guys get pretty damn <u>quiet</u> when it comes to talking about millions of dollars to fix these old trails or millions more to build secret new ones out their back doors...but by god when it comes to telling the rest of us where <u>we</u> damn well can ride and can't...they sure as hell aren't going to let some 'punk' local businessman or his clear as the day is long map http://www.fishweb.com/maps/emmet/or...awk/index.html...get in the way of muddying the truth concerning these trails.

You guys are <u>flat</u> <u>out</u> pitiful. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-sad.gif[/img]

By the way, who wants to bet that these cycle boys...after ignoring the same arrogant jerk who changed the map of this trail to read "motorcycle only"...will be all over this poor businessman who dared to speak the forbidden word.."multi-use"???