Thank you mywifesquad I appreciate your help.

RJ

 

[quote]
Originally posted by: mywifesquad
As much as I appreciate your evaluation of my motives here, MWQ....I guess I'm going to have to challenge you to point out here where I mention my "Rhino" in regards to any of this.
Even more disturbing (to me) is your assertion that I have ever implied that a motorcycle didn't have the same right to ANY of the same trail that I did. The irony here lies in the fact that (as DB "tries" to point out to BUSY RIDER|)...neither atvs nor RUVS have <u>ever</u> attempted to subdivide themselves within the light orv community....<u>ANYWHERE</u> in this great country!.

Which is probably why the room got pretty damn quiet and one of these "god" motorcycle leaders <u>had</u> <u>to</u> <u>shut</u> <u>his</u> <u>damn</u> <u>trap...</u> when I asked but one simple question of him at a public meeting concerning the future of our Michigan trail system. My ridiculously easy question was this:

What separates your arrogant ***** from the rest of us trying to move forward on sustainably maintainable multi-use trail systems....and would you finally reveal how <u>much</u> mileage of this entire system (past/present/future)....should be flat-out shut <u>down</u> **FOREVER** for the <u>exclusive</u> use of you and your cronies?

You could of heard a pin drop.

Now let's get back to answering DB's simple question of Busy Rider above concerning the standardized multi-use trail system....and pray tell hope that he answers same with the simple questions I've raised above and for years...in mind. (I'm sorry, but the true members of this forum are NOT the dividers of this communty...and <u>never</u> have been).

Hmmmm, now that you've got me thinking about it...since my Rhino introduces, for the very first time, more rightful owners to THEIR resource (the young, old and disabled) than a rapidly declining "fit-only" machine such as the motorcycle.....why shouldn't "I" just use the same lame "because that's the way I (we) <u>like</u> it" reasoning....to DEMAND exclusive trails for side-by-sides...and side-by-sides only ?!?! (and by god give some separate trails...to the atvers too!).

 

Im not sure where in the multitude of pages of your discussion i read it, but Im positive it came up over the last year or so either here or at Thumper Talk. If I get a few hours of time Ill go look for it. Im pretty sure you want wider trails than a MC requires, dont you? Im sorry if my over simplification of what at Ive inturpeted as your side disturbs you. However I have stated that i understand your frustration in all this and just have no clue how to fix it. And dont know that I want to. Ive gopt enough off road problems here in Ca. My experience with Michigan is pretty limited.
My only comment about "subdivision" is.......youve got to be kidding me? Your needs are much different than that of a MC, of course you want special trails. It only makes sense to me. How can you deny you have special needs/wants?

This statement only clarifies my last comment. Shut down forever to Quad use? Is that what you mean? I assume they wouldnt be closed to M/C use? "cronies"= Dirt bike riders I assume?

And as much as I hate to admit it, you may have stumbled onto your best way past those that bother you. Play the Disability Card!! And play it hard. It works in every other aspect of american life, why not for your cause? Once youve got some sympathy, you should be home free. Maybe you could even get the ACLU to back you up.

 

I fully support a mutil-use 60 inch trail,always have. The issues here is that the few hard core cyclist do not want any trail wider than 24 inches and this is where we meet some opposition in Michigan.Being the understandable individule that I am and a past cyclist myself, I try and see things from their perception of trail widths too. I dont have an issue with keeping a few trails for the cyclist that are cut to their 24 inch width and moving the rest of them to 60 inches for use by other ATVs and ORVs. But what we need to do FIRST is to be SURE that the DNR give us this extra 750 miles of trail that is promised to us by 2008.

Lets see IF they [DNR] keep up their end of the bargan,than when the new trail is on the ground, make adjustments to exsisting trails as deemed neccessary.

Lets not bite more off than we can chew.

 

A 60 inch trail is a road, not a trail. Thats the main problem between the 2 sides here. I personally wouldnt want to give up any mc trail if they were already there. Let alone be left with a "few". And no "Good" dirt bike rider would either. I can only wonder what this discussion would be like if the "roads" had existed, for what about 40 plus years or so? Not to mention made and maintained by a few quad riders and a bunch of new comers wanted to shrink them to their wants/needs.

 

60 inches still will not allow 2 quads to pass one another on the trail.
I have to agree with MWQ in this, 60 Inch trail systems would not be that appealing to any serious dirt biker. WHat happens, is that as the trails widen, more traffic becomes involved on them, and inevitably, sections of the trail become one large section of swamp that many bikes cant traverse without going outside of the trail to go around. this leads to braiding of the sytem, and simply invites more illegal trails. I see this on just about EVERY major trail system i have been on. I believe the H/M system has the perfect setup, with portions of the trail system off limits to ATVS and remaining single track to accomodate bikes. This means Bikes arent bottled up behind slower ATVS, or stuck watching them turn a small water hole into 5 feet of impassable mud. I have no problem haveing a MAJORITY multi use system, but I still believe there needs to be room for individual tastes.. Give ATVERS some room to play in the mud, Give Bikers some single track.

 

The Hatfield McCoy Trails Multi-use Trail System averages 5.8% motorcycle trail mileage per trail. (perfect indeed if you are unable to get motorcycle groups to work with their light 4-wheeled brothers to open up massive trail systems such as Michigan's to even "parallel" multi-use trails in the first place).
What DragginButt has simply asked the Vice-president and Legislative Director of American Motorcycle Association District 14 (the largest in the country, right here in Michigan)...is to simply give some kind of <u>official</u> <u>public</u> <u>statement</u> regarding the future of standardized 60" multi-use trails at the largest trail system in this <u>country</u>. (to that end, he is being flat-out ignored....<u>and</u> <u>for</u> <u>good</u> <u>reason</u>).
"I" have taken his very simple question one-step further to suggest that this current chairman of our Michigan Orv Advisory Board...."advise" us as to the other question which has shut <u>up</u> every single one of the motorcyclists who have ever been asked it for several years now....

...what percentage of trails, pray tell, do <U>you</U> demand "for eternity" be forever set aside for <u>your</u> machines; not only in regards to Michigan's massive 3,000 mile "old" system (see the Tomahwk debate above) but the 750 miles of new trail this "22,000 member MMRC" has chosen to take behind closed doors and without recorded minutes regarding?

I have always been a simple man with simple questions folks....and the answers here (unfortunately) dig right down to the root of why this community continues to be divided in the first place. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-sad.gif[/img]

 

BB QUOTE**
what percentage of trails, pray tell, do you demand "for eternity" be forever set aside for your machines; not only in regards to Michigan's massive 3,000 mile "old" system (see the Tomahwk debate above) but the 750 miles of new trail this "22,000 member MMRC" has chosen to take behind closed doors and without recorded minutes regarding?

I have always been a simple man with simple questions folks....and the answers here (unfortunately) dig right down to the root of why this community continues to be divided in the first place
END of Quote**

Simple man with some redicules questions and accusations. You claim you know nothing about this ''super secret'' MMRC........Than just HOW in the hell do you know that 22.000 members are involved?And what in the world makes you beleive that our ORV Chairperson is a cycle worshiper?.FYI---he has a very NICE 2-seater ATV that he enjoys alot.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MYWIFESQUAD,
im not sure where you get off by calling ATVers a BUNCH OF NEWCOMERS?I been riding 3-4 wheelers much longer [23yrs] than I have been riding cycles [15yrs].

Should the Amish also complain because they constructed the original roadways,than comes along more modern ways of transportation with the intervention of the automobile,thus turning the Amish trailways into roads?Using your method of idealology,even the Amish should complain.

With time,comes bigger and newer toys and the need for trail change,and if that means turning most cycle trails into a muti-use trail system for the purpose of addressing what the vast amount of users are riding today,than thats just the way it has to be whether you ride an ATV,Cycle,or other ORV in mass quantity.

 

MWQ, BB didn't ask for 60 inches... that was a result of a discussion between me and Muddy, and I happen to agree that it just makes more fiscal sense to include all groups when asking for funding to either build or maintain trail systems. Lets face it, in these times of limited funding.. it just makes more sense. In this way there is no favoritism to any group... These are things that government agencies like, because it keeps them out of litigation.

Second, I happen to have a few years under my belt living and working in the political arena... in DC, and also have spent the past 8 years or so in an international environment... and I'll be th efirst one to tell you that the number on road to failure is to isolate yourself from mainstream, or from others who have like interests. Cooperation and collaberation is the new way fo doing business with the government... Period... At least if you are not doing anything underhanded that is...

My beef, and it has been all along, is that I and many others who live in MI are asking simple questions.. Like who does this group speak for? Are their proposals meeting the needs and wishes of ALL groups?

A simple question.. one that I feel requires an answer.... Silence only gives creedance to the opposition. I advocate getting everything out in the open... and I think that is one of BBalled's complaints.. that what started as an open debate was taken behind closed doors.

When considering that public funds are either being spent, or contemplated to be spent.. I think everyone agrees that the taxpayers who are providing the funds have a right to know how they are being spent.

In addition, it appears that the DNR is responsible for selecting the advisors.. and to date it was assumed that they were up front and treated all groups as equals... But now it is has been suggested that this is not the case..and recent announcements support that premise.. So stand up and say so.. that is not a hard thing to do, nor an unreasonable request.

That is all that is being asked.... and should be answered.

I do not buy the argument that a wider trail is going to "ruin" the experience for anyone. It damn sure will make things safer when you don't have trees reaching out to pull your bars out of your hands. The wider trails can be groomed too.. far easier than single track. Groomed and safer trails take away the number one argument used against all motorized sports.. and keep the nay sayers off our backs.. This is a POSITIVE move forward that shows not only government agencies, and news coverage that we as an organized group CAN address the negatives plastered all over the press, but that we are capable of coming up with workable solutions without some legislator who probably has never seen an ATV in real life writing a new law that will limit our activity even further...

PLUS and this is a biggie... you can take your novice children out on a wider trail and feel reasonably certain that they are going to have a safe experience. You can't do that with some overgrown, rutted, and rock infested trail that has only seen one bike in the past 6 months... and that is what some are fighting to protect.

The complaint that wider trails mean more use.. well that is the point isn't it? More use equals more funds for local business, governments, and ultimately the whole community. It is about working to change perceptions... It is about being good citizens.. and showing that we DO care about issues like the environemnt etc, and that we CAN be a responsible partner that the authorities can work WITH. But the solution MUST include all factions to work.

 

[quote]
Originally posted by: MUDDY4LIFE
"...You claim you know nothing about this 'super secret' MMRC........Than just HOW in the hell do you know that 22.000 members are involved?...."

Welllll...here's your club bragging to the ATVA in their latest newsletter::

"...Also, the ATV Offroad Club of Michigan was one of the founding members of the Michigan Motorized Recreation Council. The MMRC was formed by the major off-road recreation groups in Michigan, representing more than 22,000 off-road users..."

....and here they are yet again bragging about how 'quickly' they killed the latest opportunity to have our trails properly widened for the betterment of the majority of this Michigan orv community....in a liitle over 24 hours!:

"...House Bill 5343 “REMOVED FROM AGENDA”
We were informed at 8:20 a.m. on Tuesday, the 25th of October, that HB 5343 was to have a hearing before the Michigan House Committee on Conservation, Forestry and Outdoor Recreation.
HB 5343 would have opened all 50” motorcycle and ATV ORV trail to 60”.
This would have allowed utility vehicles such as side-by-sides and the 6-wheeled Argo, to share the trail with motorcycles and ATV’s in all age groups. We had some very serious safety and <u>environmental</u> concerns.."
Various ORV user groups under the umbrella of Michigan Motorized Recreation Council <u>immediately</u> began making calls to the State Representatives stating our position. At 10:56 a.m., Wednesday, October 26th, just 26 hours and 36 minutes later, we were informed, HB 5343 was “Removed from the Agenda”...."

Curious about the term "super-secret"?....hey, I'll help you out once more....just check out my signature below from the very guy who started this thread!.

Uhhhh, care to ask anything else there 'ol Bill? (on second thought, just drag Busy Rider out here to answer Dragginbutt's questions above?...and we'll call it "even". [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img]