I can tell you that I'd be one PISSED OFF SOB if I drove all the way to this Dickson Lodge that BB highlighted that indicates the green trail as being for BOTH ATVs and dirtbikes and than when I get there,find out that I cant fit my ATV down the width of the trail that indicates I can,because its cut to cycle width.

Rondo's map shows it as being a cycle trail and only a very small portion of it being available to route. If one were to look at Rondo's book,than they would not be led into thinking this trail is wide enough for a ATV,however,one look at the Dickson Lodge map,indicates otherwise.

What gives here?

 

What "gives" here is the fact that these business people have been forced to inform their customers that they have every damn right in the world to go down these trails. The next step beyond displaying maps which note that right (countering those out there selling bogus versions effectively driving their majority customers away)...is to slam the kind of heavy politcal pressure right smack dab down on the DNR personnel responsible for allowing this 100 miles of trail to be maintained at morcycle widths in the first place.

You know what gives here, Bill,,,the question is....who are you more concerned about?

These old businesses who have been here for years and supported ALL of our trail systems throughout the state for decades(?)....or these city slicker cycle boys and their well documented desire to "keep things the way they are"...while blatantly positioning themselves to make the "new" buck...outside of Detroit? (effectively eliminating many of these northern business people's regular past customers and divying up the their puny/crappy maintenance pie even further).

I told you a long time ago that it would come down to this choice....with the sad part being that many of you sold out these people long before this thread ever got started. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-sad.gif[/img]

 

The ONLY thing im concerned about is that some poor sole dont drive 200 miles or further to get to this lodge,only to find out that they really cant ride this trail with their ATV because the map they have is mis-informing customers into thinking their ATVs will fit onto this trail when indeed it would'nt.

Rondo's map indicates that the majority of this trail is ORV trail with a cycle insignia on the marker,the lodge is indicating BOTH a cycle and ATV trail for a huge portion of the same trail. I have a huge concern over this trail indicating the use of ATVs IF 95% of it is cut to cycle trail width.

I have never rode the Tomahawk trail so I cannot comment on whether one could or could not use his ATV on this trail,as is indicated by the Dickerson Lodge map.

But,I do want to find out!

 

[quote]
Originally posted by: MUDDY4LIFE
"...The ONLY thing im concerned about is that some poor sole dont drive 200 miles or further to get to this lodge,only to find out that they really ***cant*** ride this trail with their ATV because the map they have is mis-informing customers into thinking their ATVs will fit onto this trail when indeed it <u>would'nt</u>...."

Again, Bill...you're getting about as slick at ignoring the reality of these local's use <u>of</u> this trail system with their atvs; as 2-Trakkr. When I sit down with the DNR and ask what they know about the trail....and they tell me THAT THEY'VE RODE PORTIONS OF IT <u>THEIRSELVES</u> and on their own atvs...why in the hell; would you doubt me?.

"..Rondo's map indicates that the majority of this trail is ORV trail with a cycle insignia on the marker..."

The only map I've ever seen hawked on the street by those attempting to shove their noses as far as possible up these cyclists butt cheeks...<u>does</u> <u>not</u> <u>show any damn indication of this trail being anything but a "motorcycle only" trail</u>....and you know it.
What a lot of people may not realize when reading Muddy's continued defense of this map being "O.K." as compared to the official DNR map simply showing our atv trails clearly mapped on it...is that he is an atver! Worse yet...the guy hawking this same map...leads an <u>atv</u> organization!

These Detroit suburbanites can smell this new big city slicker riding area in the air so strong...that what you see here regarding the manner in which they treat these 'old system' business people and their right to even so much as go down the very trails our DNR has plainly spelled out in their official maps....is not even a 'blip' on their radar screens.(the smell of "money" will do that to those who could care about nothing more)
It gets better:

"...The lodge is indicating BOTH a cycle and ATV trail for a huge portion of the same trail. I have a huge concern over this trail indicating the use of ATVs IF 95% of it is cut to cycle trail width...."

THEY HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO GO DOWN THAT SAME TRAIL, BILL!....YET THE ONLY THING YOU AND YOUR " BUDDY" CYCLISTS DON'T WANT THE ATVING PUBLIC TO GET ALL EXCITED ABOUT....IS THE FACT THAT ATVERS IN MICHIGAN HAVE BEEN HELD HOSTAGE TO THESE TRAIL WIDTHS...BY THE VERY SAME PEOPLE YOU COME UP HERE TODAY... TO <u>DEFEND!
</u>For Pete's sake, Bill....your club turns out to be a major player in fighting these simple widening bills; not to mention sending people to sit on the board of these 'secret' councils...and this after begging these cyclists....to take all of you in as part and parcel of their organization!

"....I have never rode the Tomahawk trail so I cannot comment on whether one could or could not use his ATV on this trail..."

Then why in the hell are you doubting even "the DNR's" assertion that portions of this trail are passable on an atv ALREADY?. Do you think I would actually lie about something like this and what exactly are you attempting to do?...deny this business person's ability to so much as even market any portion of this 100 mile trail system; so that his customers may actually be able to use it and have a good time?

This is exactly why I had to get out of atv politcs.
You can't even get the very people riding these machines....to argue for (in this case) MASSIVE amounts of trail mileage already open to them...yet controlled by those who don't give a damn about being a part of any multi-use "community" in the first place.
If they won't fight for crap like this...I'm sure as hell not going to do it <u>for</u> <u>them</u>.

 

I will say this,if I find out that this trail is marked as an ATV trail and is only cut to a cycle trail width,I will be doing my own investigations into this matter.It is both impractical and wrong to mark this trail for use by ATVs if 90% of it is cut to the width of only 24 inches,and misleading to the ATV operator.

I hope Jeramey comes in here and sheds some light on this for me because I am concerned.

Oh,wait a minute----I may see him this weekend in our super secret MMRC hiding spot/meeting?

 

Busyrider.. You started this thread... I think everyone here deserves an answer to my question posed to you. Do you support a 60 inch trail width, and do you represent the interests of ATV, two wheel and RUV enthusiasts or not? And are you prepared to take that proposal to the DNR and fight for it?

 

The way I see it, it isn't about trail maps here... the real issue is designing a standard that is compatible for multiple use by RUV's, ATV's and 2 wheel OFFROAD vehicles Wording can be introduced to limit the trucks etc... No matter, they will probably be found there any way... But back to the real issue.

A multi use trail system design requirement.of 60" is the best compromise proposal and one that allows the DNR to combine what is now 3 seperate groups crying for support into one category. It also allows them to spend limited funds in a more cost effective manner... and it will have something they can hold over the heads of contractors if the trails they are being paid to maintain do not meet specification. Failure means no payment Pure and simple.

Any new trails should be built to the standard and include all groups period.

The second issue, is does this advocacy group claim to speak for the combined audience? If so, then it is time to push the ONE solution that meets everyone's needs.... If not, then say so.. and let the other groups form their own advocacy group. This would in my opinion be a serious step backwards for all concerned, but at least everything is in the open.

It is my sincere wish that when all the shouting is done.. that there is one voice... one group standard.. and one vision going forward. That is the kind of cohesiveness and planning that gets noticed, and support from agency and elected representative alike. Nothing like several thousand registered voters speaking with one vision that gets things DONE, and legislation making it happen to be drafted.... GET ER DONE MICHIGAN!!!

 

 

Let me help you some. you can either go to the your profile page and next to: Set topics you post to default the "subscribe to thread" option as: "not Checked" They recommend checked. I dont.

Or you could go to the today page and on the upper left there is a box marked "subscriptions" You can unsubscribe there.

I to have grown tired of this thread but must check on it occasionally.

It seems to me that BB is upset that the MC guys dont want to make MC trails wide enough for his Rhino. But if they do he wants MC's to stay off them unless he can squeeze his way onto the single track trails. I do understand BB being upset with the misrepresentation, but I wouldnt want single track made into roads either.

 

The Tomahawk Motorcycle Trail is, as it's name implies, maintained at cycle standards. 24" on the ground, 40" at the bars. Previous DNR maps showed it with that name and only a cycle in the picture - but they also had the generic ORV Trail language "50 inch or less off-road motorcycles and/or ATVs". Legally, you know the speal, ATVs are OK to ride on 40" trail so the map language was legit.
That language didn't cover the general publics need to know if their ATV would be an easy fit or if it would be difficult due to trail widths. The new maps takes a small step in that direction and removes the "and/or ATVs". Doesn't prohibit ATVs. Rondeau's maps takes this a step further and says "maintained as a motorcycle trail" or whatever it was you/BB indicated (don't have that map). I am in complete agreement with you that people need to know if this trail is suitable for their equipment before they get on the trail and find out otherwise. Some of the A Loop and (I'd say) all of the C Loop is really a lot closer to a 50" trail and I have encountered ATVs on them.

As for markings, the trail should only have the orange triangles with a cycle on them. I would not be surprised if there were a handfull of the orange triangles with ATVs on them mixed in which would be due to DNR attempts at cost savings or insufficient esitmates on producing multiple triangles throughout the years.