Here I go spinning it off again. We have public forest roads on public land that are not open to ORV use. We have singletrack trail that is only open to hiking/skiing; trail just for horses, trails just for mountain bikes, trails just for snowmobiles. All on public land, some paid for by User Fees and some not. Should they all be opened up for all types of travel?

 

There is no spin intended Jeremy... just my humble opinion. I guess it would depend on the source of funds... For example, if trail systems were built and maintained by snowmobile sticker fees, and only from a snowmobile pot of money FOR snowmobiles then sure I see no reason it can't be exclusive... I think that is logical... I feel the same way if cycle fees were used exclusively for cycle trails...

BUT, if those funds are thown in one pot and combined with ATV fees for example, then the subject gets clouded...and when mixed, I feel it would fall under the mixed use requirement... Does that make sense?

I don't know how the state does it's fees structures, or if they keep their money in seperate pots. IF they do, it would be easy to seperate the activities. If they don't, then it would seem to me that if they have already combined the various groups funds together, they would be obligated to build to the mixed use standard.

Tell me something.... Do two wheel enthusiasts have the right to all trails built to ATV standards? Just wondering...

As for hikers, horse riders, Bicyclists etc... That is a toss up... I admit I have not considered their cases, and haven't a clue how that would fit in the grand scheme as I don't know if there are fee structures or not for them.

I guess maybe it is a much more complex deal than I was originally considering. Personally I'd say to *&^% with them, but of course I am a little biased towards things with engines on them... Can't seem to get the same rush from the saddle of a horse..... I think you are giving me a headache now...

 

(lol)...you've just got to love these motorcyclists!

The first one (ohv advocate) comes in here with dire warnings concerning the foregone conclusion that ski-steer Argos will increase costs on regularly scheduled trail maintenance runs with modern equipment (the same 48" equipment more-than-likely capable of grading Michigan sand at 60" with no problem whatsoever).....while young Jeremy tries to make the argument that the Michigan citizenrey doesn't actually own the public land that he and his cyclist buddies desire all to themselves...so if they come up with cash totally separate form this now divided community...he should damn well have a system...all to himself!

Neither one seems all that anxious to answer the pressing question concerning just how much total mileage an arrogant 2-wheeler "requires" be set aside forever from the very orv community they just divided...but hey, what's more important?

OHV Advocate and his veiled reference to unleashing every environmentalist in the country on us for even considering these widened widths ("..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.."..)..or young 2-Trakkr trying to confuse these issues (once again) with his exaggerated scenarios?

OHV Advocate's pointless statement below pretty much sums up where these guys are coming from concerning their behind-the-scenes separation from us outside of our earshot and the very separate agenda that they constantly pursue:

"..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....."

If there's a point to be made here regarding the reality of true orv partnerships being created within a community to build true multi-use trails regardless of cost....would somebody please come up here and make it?.
Again, these older cyclists truly DO believe that God DID appear before them concerning these trails shut down to the rest of us at this time. They'll break it down concerning time, money, 'environmental impact' or any one of a dozen other manners which amplify their deserved separation from the rest of us.

Again, if somebody doesn't start calling them out onto the carpet over this "holier-than-thou" supposed RIGHT to the exclusive use of our public lands....they'll keep dazzlin' us with their b.s. in an attempt to change that very subject...as you witness so obviously above.

 

Most all are on established/existing forest roads that are open to street licensed vehicles. There are sections that are on leased private property not otherwise open to travel (the lease is paid for by the User Fees); there are sections on forest road that are otherwise closed to vehicular traffic.

On State owned land, an ORV license is required for access to all ORV trails and Routes. Two wheeled or four wheeled, long as they are less than 50" wide, they can travel on the ORV Trails. To directly answer your question: yes.

There are no fees or licenses for them, yet they have dedicated and maintained trails on Public land; trails that are closed to motorized use.

I actually had a point on the previous post about free trail building. See, most all of the trail and especially any recently built trail has been built for free, by groups such as the CCC and AMA D-14. Layout, clearing, cutting, signing and so on, all done for free and most of that trail has either been Route (72") or Trail (50"). Of course, don't take this the wrong way, we are losing trail mileage more than we are gaining. Losing due to trail closures for various "environmental related" issues.

 

One of the biggest holes in these selfish bastard's argument concerns the 60" trail itself.
Hold your hands down at your side while sitting on your atv....while 'imagining' that your near 50" wide atv; actually required the additional width needed of that hand on either side; just to navigate.
Uhhhh, isn't this actually true concerning most of the trails we ride....right now?
Do you spend the entire day daring not to turn your handlebars one way or the other....lest you 'run into something' going down a 50" inch trail with a 50" machine?

My point is, the vast majority of the 50" mileage we use presently..is 60" or better already...and that nobody but the cyclists are demanding...that we forget this!

These guys realize that we are but a few trees here and there away from constructing a true multi-use system....a system that will certainly NOT look drastically different from the very one we use today.
With the natural next question being why any group in the light orv category/community deserves exclusive trails for themselves in the first place...and <u>when</u> same will be returned to the citizens which own this land...once and for all. (lead, follow...or get the hell out of the way [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img] ).

 

By the way, every motorcycle/atv dealer in Michigan that I've ever talked to; sends in pretty hefty dues money to these guys http://www.michmda.org/page.cfm/6/ on a regular basis.
Considering the fact that this organization's last representative to our orv advisory board was less than receptive to my asking just <u>where</u> these people actually 'stood' in regards to the pressing orv issues well at hand...is it any wonder that the dealers of this state have absolutely NO <u>current</u> legislative info regarding their very livelihoods?

Question: Why did these people <u>support</u> the first widening bill (when absolutely nobody else would)....and where was this organization....when the second one got killed even before that bill...became public knowledge?

If "I" was a dealership paying dues..to keep me informed during the most <u>dynamic</u> period in Michigan's <u>history</u> concerning <u>additional </u>trail mileage (*750 miles* for gosh sakes) or certainly even a 25 year DNR orv 'update plan' that will certainly shape the system "I" drew a good portion of my income from for years to come..."April of last year" wouldn't cut it for <u>my</u> "latest" Michigan orv legislative update.

Again, as I've argued for seven long years now...anything groundbreaking concerning the massive mileage on this country's LARGEST trail system...is not seeing the light of day here and <u>never</u> has.
You can draw your own conclusions from this....yet frankly, I think every one of these national organization's complete silence regarding the ongoing CRAP taking place in the largest American Motorcycle Association District in this nation...pretty well tells the average atver....all he or she needs to know. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-sad.gif[/img]

 

Originally posted by: 2TrakR
"..Here I go spinning it off again. We have public forest roads on public land that are not open to ORV use. We have singletrack trail that is only open to hiking/skiing; trail just for horses, trails just for mountain bikes, trails just for snowmobiles. All on public land, some paid for by User Fees and some not. Should they all be opened up for all types of travel?..."

What he is trying to do here....is get around the question as to just why he and his cycle buddies can't simply ride the same trails we do ....while working together on same for the good of this community.
Any time you start to hear these guys drift off while comparing themselves with non-motorized recreation and "snowmobilers"...this talk is always designed to justify their separation from the rest of us this in this community...while making same sound like "common sense". [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img]

 

If you actually rode any of the trails, you might have a little better understanding on just what is out in the woods.

Take a look at this image:
Gladwin Trail

That's one pass from the CCC's 48" grader on what is considered the widest/most used trail in our system - Gladwin. Note the groove worn into the ground, not from the grader, but from the traffic on the trail. A 60" vehicle would be riding either outer ridge with at least one track. To make this trail safe, or at the least passable, by a 60" vehicle would require serious amounts of sod/soil removal to match the existing trail base.

 

At 20 pages and counting......not to mention the countless pages else where. Is anything being accomplished in this thread? Ill take responses from any one who will answer.

 

From a good dirt bike riders perspective thats a road.