I think DB draws his conclusion from the fact that you are the <u>only</u> person not represented by these organizations here that has bothered to speak up as interested observers concerning same. (which represents a long period of time and many views put forward to date).

Again, my simple question for seven years now has been this:
Either publicly come out and state just how much Michigan trail mileage should forever be shut down to the <U>majority</U> of those using it...or damn well start shining the light of day on what these arrogant bastards are actually doing behind the scenes and proudly in secret(see my signature below)...so that the rest of us can determine just what this "exclusive trails/width" ongoing political platform actually consists of.

If you folks are organizing, great...my response to this thread was simply aimed at giving those not represented in the slightest as you mentioned above....'some' kind of idea as to just <U>what</U> they would be up against in this fight.(as I've absolutely had it with those who choose to act "anonymously" for years).

 

[quote]
Originally posted by: MUDDY4LIFE
"...Everyone within the MMRC does belong to a legal ORV club,whether it be ATV,Cycle,or truck club. Some of us support ALL three. So <u>actually</u> we do have a legal voice in matters..".

Uhhhh, "Bill"....what does "belonging to" or even supporting a "legal" orv club....have to do with possessing even the slightest "legal" voice when referring to a council that even your buddy Jeremy describes as this?
"...Not yet as MMRC is not an actual organization (yet). There's certainly "the chance" that they <u>will</u> become a legal entity and **then** speak for the member organizations...."

We understand why a cyclist would try to buffalo us with this nonsense...yet when a fellow atver comes up here and tries to throw the weight of "the law" behind a <u>ridiculous</u> statement such as that?...I apoligize, but I guess I'm just going to have to 'call' you on that one. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-sad.gif[/img]

"....I personally would like to leave the MMRC as a silent entity, because IF we decided to make ourselves a legal ORV entity within Michigan,than folks like BB would have direct access to everything we discuss in these meetings, and God knows we dont want someone with his attitude sending us backwards anymore....."

(lol) [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/img] I don't even know how to respond to that, Bill.....other than to thank you for so vivdly illustrating just what this topic has been all about..."what is really going on in Michigan".
If you could have simply posted that you were the only atver in this 22,000 member representative council who (cough) "fought" for simple trail widening in these secret meetings...then followed same up with what you've just revealed above concerning keeping them secret...I think that all of us up here would have gotten the picture 17 pages ago as to the mularkey being promoted on that very first post!.

".....Many ATV organizations are advised to "watch and see" what happens with this extra 725 miles of trail here in Michigan before we start "fluffing" the powers that be for more trail width....."

Advised by who?
The very same people (mainly cyclists and their red-headed step-child atv clubs) who are presently refusing to make public or private statements concerning what they are advising these same powers that be...concerning this MASSIVE new mileage?
Again, I thought 2-Trakkr took the cake when it came to probing just how stupid these cyclists believe this atv community to be...yet you want us to "wait"...for what?
For pete's sake, Muddy...I just got off the phone last week with a legislator being pressured to go "low impact" with these bozo's machines in building yet another exclusive trail...through the Hiawatha Forest!
What do you want this atv community to do, Muddy...just "sit back" while these arrogant idiots intentionally disparage our machines v.s. theirs....in orderto get their own way and effectively close down yet even more "new" trail mileage...forever?

 

Muddy, if what you are saying is true, I think you have to admit that the organization has an obligation to be as public with it's meetings and goals if it in any way is attempting to influence actions taken by agencies that use public funds. I do not see how asking for this to be made public is an unreasonable request. I also do not feel it unreasonable to ask what direction the group is attempting to bend the same agencies. Sure you can't keep everyione happy all the time, and people have the right to voice their viewpoints....and disagree from time to time.

I do not think that it should go beyond that, and I believe our brother BBalled may on occasion go overboard by re-hashing the same thing over and over, and sometimes refuses to admit that some times, people choose to go in directions that are counter to his thoughts, however, it must be commented on that I have seen much of the evidence that he has collected, and have observed the actions of this group and I have to say that the actions support his complaints more often than not.

I think our friend has been quite gentlemanly in keeping certain information quiet regarding some actions of a personal nature that could embarrass someone he considered a friend at one time...

All in all, I think this has gone far enough... and I hope people go away knowing that the actions of this group are not fully in the best interest of ATV enthusiasts all the time... and if there is one good thing to come of it, I think we can see that clearly now.

I wish all you folks that have a passion for our given sports all the best of luck... In the coming days, I think you will be drawn together, probably kicking and screaming, but pulled together all the same, and I hope that together, at some point in time, some good will come of our discussions...

DB

 

I was at the Birch Run Expo Center today and was representing my ATV Safety Organization along with the Artic Cat ATVs that Flint Gander Mountain sell.

There were MANY vendors there today,and guess who I ran into? The ARGO guys that originally started this trail widening stuff years ago.I was fascinated to learn that the AMA along with some folks in the CCC have been very instrumental in getting these widening Bills shut down so fast here in Michigan.I was told that the AMA made a comment that since Argo's make up for such a SMALL percentage of overall ORV users in Michigan,they dont pack the tax dollars into the economy nearly as much as the other users do and therefore should'nt have any say so on Michigan trail issues.. I was shocked to hear this as the excuse from the AMA for not excercising the thought of opening up the trails for muli-use..

If the AMA and the CCC want to use tax dollars as an excuse,than maybe the ATVers of this State ought to do exactly the samething to the dirtbike riders.

I mean,there are far more ATVs sold in Michigan than there is Dirtbike operators/buyers.

Funny thing here is the Argo folks I talked to today did not even know the ORV Advisory board even exsisted until I told them at todays show. It is now becomeing very FISHY how the last few trail widening issues got shut down so DARN FAST? If the MMRC was instrumental in getting this last trail widening bill [5343] closed down so quickly, that is FLAT WRONG IMO. We have NO RIGHT as a group to lay claim that we represent 22.000 users in Michigan that opposed this widening Bill.Just because the MMRC has a FEW ATV OFF ROAD club members and a FEW CCC members within the MMRC,does NOT mean those FEW individules represent HOW the majority of these club members feel about the trail widening issue,and for the MMRC to represent it as such,is just FLAT wrong [if thats how it went?] . And it is further wrong for the Senators office to believe such a thing SO DAMN FAST without digging into the issues FURTHER.

If what the Argo guys told me today about HB5343 is truthful,than I think BB has the right to excercise his humiliation towards certain groups.NO unorganized group should have the right to shut down ANY Bill.I just believe that there are better ways to for BB to show his frustrations.

I got some more DIGGING to do.

 

I think you are starting to see what many have been trying to make public here my friend... I understand the AMA and MMRC wanting to have things their own way, and it appears to me although they may have some ATV members, their actions certainly do not in any way support any claim to represent the ATV enthusiasts.

Holding meetings behind closed doors, refusing to answer legitimate questions etc, they all create glaring questions in just what their motives are... I have to admit that I think a lot of people may have to give BBalled credit for hounding the group to the point where the truth is starting to reach daylight.

I sincerely hope that somehow, the REAL statistical information reaches the state's elected officials. It appears that they either may be in bed with them, or have been hoodwinked into believing their lies. Either way, a campaign to get to the truth of the matter is certainly in order...

Again, I hope the ATV riders in MI will rise to the occasion and make their voice known to those that can make a change in how the money is spent, and how the trails are built. It is time that all forms of motorized sports be placed on equal footing and given the same rights to trail access that the 2 wheel crowd under the auspices of the MMRC have enjoyed, and have the same access to leaders in state and local DNR management.

Not sure if the folks at the blueribbon coalition can assist.. but htey may have some statistics that may prove helpful to make your case with.

Bottom line is, I think the MMRC has pulled the wool over a lot of people's eyes, and I think it is about time for it to blow up in their face.... Go get 'em my friend...

 

Dragginbut quoted from above:
"..Not sure if the folks at the blueribbon coalition can assist.. but they may have some statistics that may prove helpful to make your case with...."

I've contacted the Blue Ribbon; the NOHVCC and the ATVA regarding these "anonymous" figures for quite some time now. I finally came of the opinion that what one major orv leader in this country informed me, is sadly true....my opinion is that every one of these organizations is chock full of either old cyclists and/or two wheeled sympathizers....who would have to stand up like a man against somebody...that they already know!

I've had friendly conversations with every one of these people right up to about the time that I started repeating what each of these organizations supposedly stood for when asking for my fellow atvers money (their salaries)....and how that 'feel good' mantra contrasted with what was actually happening here in Michigan...INVOLVING THE SAME PEOPLE THEY KNOW <u>VERY</u> WELL AND WHO ARE SOMETIMES FURTHER <u>MAJOR</u> PLAYERS IN THEIR VERY <u>OWN</u> NATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS.

Again, American Motorcycle District 14 is the largest district in this country...and this good-'ol-boys club has been slapping other national "orv" leaders on the back while meeting/vacationing with same all <u>over</u> this country...for decades.
Nobody begrudges this; yet the "we all work together" legacy these trail pioneers hoped to leave behind is quickly *disappearing* as we speak. This is due not only to their reluctance/inability to come out publicly regarding coming down on one side or the other on these multi-use trail issues (the ATVA claims to have not even KNOWN about these historically massive 750 miles needing ***<u>a</u> <u>national</u> <u>disposition</u> <u>opinion</u>*** before I informed them)... but by their continued refusal to step in here <u>and</u> <u>take</u> <u>care</u> <u>of</u> <u>their</u> <u>own</u> when the light 4-wheeled community is treated like you witness above.

We are well aware of the inability of these national organizations to control what goes on here in Michigan....yet when these same organizations have absolutely no official statement to bring forward regarding this kind of treatment?...."for the good of the community" DOES NOT CUT IT when your old "cycle buddy(s)" are right smack dab in the middle of ALREADY dividing this community regarding these anonymous shenanigans...<u>without</u> <u>damn</u> <u>apology</u> <u>one</u>.

In my mind, <u>the</u> <u>same</u> <u>simple</u> <u>question</u> remains unanswered from day one....what do these cyclists and their national apoligetic orv organizations expect this light 4-wheeled community to "give up" concerning massive amounts of trail mileage...that the light 4-wheeled enthusiast will <u>never</u> get the opportunity to enjoy?
With the second, more important question being...which one of them heard 'God' declare that they weren't required to ride/maintain/work on...the same damn trails as the <u>rest </u>of this light orv community..<u>in</u> <u>the</u> <u>first</u> <u>place</u>!.(I'll be darn if we've got 5.8% of the trails in our Hatfield McCoy trail system which an atv couldn't traverse if they wanted to, fine..but by gosh concerning the rest of this groundbreaking new system..you are working/riding with the rest of us...whether you damn well "like it"...or not!).

 

MUDDY4LIFE wrote:
There were MANY vendors there today,and guess who I ran into? The ARGO guys that originally started this trail widening stuff years ago...

Are they still involved? The bill redefines ATVs to be 60" wide and have up to 6 wheels. Half of ARGO's models are 8-wheeled.

There's more involved with making trails work for wider/longer machines than simply making the trails wider. These machines have longer turning radius and weigh more. So trails may need additional changes, and possibly additional environmental analysis depending on land ownership, applicable laws, and how aggressively environmental groups or others want to use those laws and administrative process.

Speaking of ARGO vehicles, all of them are "skid-steered". Does this increase maintenance needs?

There are trail dozers (SWECO 480 for instance) that can be used for 50" trails. These are heavily used in the west (on systems like the Paiute), and are 48" wide across the tracks, perfect for making 50" ATV trails. A bigger dozer and more expense is needed for 60" trails.

There's also a difference in maintenance needs between singletrack trails and 50" trails. It all depends on soil type, terrain, climate, level of use, and other factors, but many singletrack trails I've maintained require little more than logging-out each spring and some occasional hand work in problem locations. The 50" ATV trails I've maintained need the logs removed (and to a greater extent -- see FS Trail Handbook) as well as blading and rebuilding drainage features with a SWECO every 3 years or so -- every 2 years on heavily used ATV trails. The spot work on singletrack trails typically takes much less time and money than the whole-trail work required on ATV trails, even though one is by hand and the other is largely by equipment. There's often some followup handwork required after dozer work too, especially when cutting new trail. I've also seen the SWECO 480 dozers used for singletrack construction to do the bench cutting, with followup backslope and cleanup work by hand. This goes much faster than completely constructing a full-bench trail by hand.

Yes, it ain't rocket science, but it's a whole lot more complex than what's being taken for granted by some in this thread.

 

I am not taking anything for granted regarding trail maintenence. However may I quantify that..to read "properly designed and built". I'll admit you might get by cheaper in a single track, but only because as you infer, very little maintenence is being done other than clearing fallen timber, and maybe cutting back some brush from time to time. That doesn't clear up ruts, rocks etc. Although in come minds that may be what they are looking for, in the long run, it would be much safer if they were removed. Especially when young riders are using the trails.

Ther eare many small light duty pieces of equipment available that could be used to do the jobs.. and my premise is that with equipment, you can cover more ground that by doing it by hand... Even if all you do is run a narrow bush hog down the path a couple times per year..

I know all about the back breaking work of building trails, maintaining bridges over environmentally sensative terrain. The goal is to introduce the sport of riding, and the outdoors to the masses, and hopefully promote a safer family atmosphere. Goen are the days of elitism.. which is what the MMRC and the AMA are trying to accomplish.

All I can say is if those 750 miles of trails are going to be built and maintained using funds that were collected from fees paid by ATV riders, then the ATV crowd has the right to demand equal access to the trails that they paid for. Which also infers wider trails. If however, the cyclists provide private funding not gleaned from ATV riders, then sure they have the right to a closed course. Somehow I doubt that the cycle crowd can come up with that kind of cash on their own... and if the state senators are intelligent, they will see only the combined use argument, and nothing more. If they want to keep their jobs that is....

You/they can't have it both ways. Either put their own funds to work, or bite the bullet and accept the fact that legally, using public funds carries some unique responsibilities on how those funds are spent. Anything less than full cooperation with all affected groups will likely land the issue in court.

 

Ah, so you are saying if the cyclists put the trail in for free, then that is money they put into the program out of their own pockets (ie private funding), thus no money was spent from the ORV Fund and so they get to have trails of their own?

 

Ha nice try... don't try and twist the words... LABOR like you describe is not the same as public funds.

I said if PUBLIC funds are used to build a trail, then all should have access. Not the same thing. Same goes for building on Public lands. If it is public land, then all should have an equal right to access.

I can see however that it might be misconstrued, sorry I am not a wordsmith by profession... Hope this helps clarify my position.

If you use private funds/labor, on private land, and you can do anything you want to do.. it is yours to control. This has been done in many areas, where right to ride is negotiated by a group with private land owners and trails are developed and maintained by that group. That by my definition would be a private riding area, and not subject to the same access argument. But I repeat no public funding can be used... I see this here in VA quite a lot...