One thing I think that is brought to light in this topic is how misused some ORV representation really is in the State of Michigan.Anytime a Bill like HB5343 gets shut down and turned down as fast as it did,is a clear cut indication of who's running the show here in Michigan,and it aint the ATVers. NO Bill should EVER get shut down that fast without ALL parties involved in ORVing being able to shed their opinions on the subject matter. Fact is,this Bill got shut down so damn fast,none of the OTHER groups even had a chance to respond to it,if they even KNEW about it in the first place?

What do we do about it?Well,its pretty appearant to me that we need much better leadership for ATVers in this State. Its a damn shame when the Senators office has the audacity to shut this widening Bill down so quick from an organization like the MMRC who is'nt even a legal entity in Michigan yet, without hearing opinions from OTHER groups first.

We need far better communications in this State for ATVers. I know groups that would have supported this Bill but did'nt know about it until it was already shut down. And we need better leadership from the FEW ATV clubs we have in this State. This may mean that SOMEBODY will have to start up their OWN ATV club with a club agenda of equal access to ALL riders.Those that dont beleive in equal access can join another club.

 

That was the third incarnation of a bill that had little support and was disbanded several times. Those previous bills existed for years, so there has been ample time for groups to comment, be aware of and show support or no support for; which those groups did. There was little difference in the intended result of 5343 vs the previous "Argo" bills.
Those previous Argo bills were brought forth by one Senator and it was based on one dealership in his District. It did not have widespread support from the ORV community, else it would have been passed. There was no trickery or behind the scenes stuff with these previous bills, there were meetings with all parties involved (ATV/Argo/Cycle, etc) and the result, again, was it was dropped. Note the MMRC was not involved with these previous bills.

HB 5343 died a sudden death because it was not supported and, here is the important part, it was set to be railroaded through. 5343 was set up to be voted on just days after it was introduced. A Polaris lobbiest was who actually got the bill introduced, it was not an ORV group, and the rationale for the introduction of the bill was unfounded - they thought there were no riding opportunities for their ATVs in the State which is not true. This lobbiest assured the Rep that this had full support of the ORV community, which it did not as the lobbies did not consult even one ORV group or even the DNR, so it was OK to push it right through without the debate and input from the ORV community. Once we found out (heck, I heard of HB5343 from you, Bill) we as a community expressed our lack of support for the bill. MMRC likes to take credit for killing this, but it was the letters and calls from individuals that killed the bill. I assume you heard of 5343 from MMRC, so I'll let them take credit for bringing it to everyone's attention and the bill's ultimate demise, but understand it was not just one letter from the MMRC that shut this bad legislation down.

And for anyone playing at home, the new Polaris TRAILS program is the same money that caused HB5343 (but I'm not sure if it was under the guise of the TRAILS program or not at that time).

 

Jeramey,
thanks for the heads up. I was not aware that the lobbist group that supported HB5343 stated to the rep that this Bill had full support of the ORV riding community. A untrue statement like that is no differant than the MMRC telling the Rep that they represent 22.000 ORV users,BOTH are wrong IMO. More homework should have been done before the Representative even introduced the Bill IMO.

As I said,I am a supporter of multi-use trails. This means that the ATV community will have to decide as a group,which way they want to go,to widen or not? Clubs such as ATV OFF ROAD already had the President and another Board member of the club openly OPPOSE [in the last MMRC meeting] multi-use trails such as the 60 inch trail.

I now find myself questioning if it is right for me to support this club any further because of the Presidents belief in a multi-use trail system that would benefit a wide variety of ORV users?This is a difficult decision for me because except for his position on the widening issue,I absolutely love this club and even the President of it.But yet,how does one go on to support a club who's President's veiws on the widening issue is differant from my beliefs?

 

 

MWQ, yes you better call Guiness, I think we may have a record breaker here...

As for doing some good, yes I think we have gotten a few things out in the open. It is obvious that what people may have believed about their representation may not have in fact been true and in their best interest. And perhaps the truth may get them interested enough to take some personal action.

We seem to argue over trail width, while the real question is the need for multi use systems being requested by the ATV crowd. Note that they are not asking for exclusive use in developing that standard... An attitude not shared by all...

Some lament loss of trails.. yet steadfastly refuse to consider that by combining forces, treating everyone as equals and developing a systems approach that fulfills the needs of every group is the most logical solution, and the one with the biggest chance of success when dealing with legislators and agencies. This infighting and arguing is sending mixed signals to the people who are in a position to make things happen. And the resulting bill's demise is a direct result...

Like I said before, unless we combine the sandboxes, we soon will be left with no playground...

2TKR, I get your point about labor... but my point concerns use of public funds derived from fees... I think that is apples and oranges. The snowmobiles are lucky in that they use roads/trails that would be unused by anyone in winter, and they cause minimal damage compared to our machines. Tough call. Although they do seem to have a better handle on the grooming deal.. and I believe their equipment takes a wider swath than the single track width requires...

One problem is that some can't get beyond the use of a bulldozer to do the work.. and they totally ignore the various other pieces of equipment available that can be pulled behind an ATV for example.

Another tact would be the safety aspect. I think it may be easier to get medical staff to a remote accident site if wider trails are available. A far reach I admit.... but if my child was the one that needed it... I doubt the wider trail issue would be at the fore front of my thoughts, unless of course the EMT's could not get to him because the trail was not wide enough.... Just a thought...

 

Originally posted by blackballed earlier:
"...The problem here being not that I wasn't..but the fact that these cyclists are very content having you be the only person in that room rattling off the facts of this matter...and not the historically silent leaders of this state's two largest atv clubs.Remember, I've been making the same argument you just made above for just as long as you have or longer. Yet if the same two atv leaders above keep giving all these cyclists 'the wink' each and every time you get up to speak (or pat you on the back "afterwards" instead of standing up like men one way or the other when the subject is brought forward for discussion)...you just might be more 'dispensble' than you might think.(merely talking from experience and many long years demanding that either one of them take a public position on any one of the exact same topics you brought forward that day).

Think about it, Bill....the minute you leave, your (and I hate to call it this;because I know you don't look at it that way) only major competition involving youth atv safety training...takes back control and back behind closed doors the very mess he brought on us in the first place...and his former "prodigee" gets rid of the one and only member of his club who ever threatened to involve his members in meaningful legacy-driven conversations <u>such</u> <u>as</u> <u>this</u>!!! (tell me, Bill; did every atver in your club just decide to "stay out" of this conversation....or did somebody simply advise them to stay away...because I <u>don't</u> see a one of 'em...in here!).

If you feel as strongly as you indicate here, Bill...believe me...they don't WANT you at those meetings....and <u>never</u> did!

For Pete's sake, Bill....I did more for guaging the "apathy" concerning these club leader's "sheep" in the Michigan atv community for years...than they could have ever accomplished had they not...thrown me out! (again, they sure as heck don't want you in there questioning the exact same things that "I" have in the past...and they sure as heck don't want themselves portrayed as complete SUCKUPS to the 2-wheeled community...as you have finally demonstrated so eloquently..above!).

Again, the minute you slide on out that door?...they'll be celebrating harder than the day "I" gave up...for sure!(and for Pete's sake don't start yet another club who supposedly "rebels" against the former..then climbs right back into bed with same on every stinking major issue that comes down the pipe. We are flat out sick of these "leaders" who hold hands everywhere but in public and always behind these damn closed doors with the peephole installed).

 

[quote]
Originally posted by: Dragginbutt
"...One problem is that some can't get beyond the use of a bulldozer to do the work.. and they totally ignore the various other pieces of equipment available that can be pulled behind an ATV for example...."

What they can't get "beyond"; DB...is the fact that the minute we start building majority use multi-use trails..not only are Michigan motorcyclists 'relegated' to working with the rest of us on sustainably maintaining same...but every single dollar that they now largely control regarding single track or 50" trail maintenance 'by hand' (basically)...goes "bye-bye" along with their ability to support fellow 2-wheelers fighting the rest of us and/or lobbying for yet even more single track only mileage.

They "ignore" modern maintenance equipment and "for-profit" privatized maintenance programs all right...and for damn good reason. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-sad.gif[/img]

 

BB,
everyone is entitled to their own opinions on the width of a trail. I dont beleive for ONE SECOND that because the President of ATV OFF ROAD has a differant opinion on trail width than me, that he is ''in bed'' with the cyclists and has ''sold out'' the ATVers in his club.I think he truly believes that we dont need a 60 inch trail in Michigan and is sold on the idea that wider will be a more unsafe trail. You can thank the cyclists for bringing the ''unsafe'' issue to the table though.

What needs to happen here is that a colalition of riders who DO want a multi-use trail need to ORGANIZE into something like the MMRC and start forming meetings of their own to counteract the AMA and the BS spread by groups like them.

 

[quote]
Originally posted by: MUDDY4LIFE
'...BB, everyone is entitled to their own opinions on the width of a trail...."

Correct...and I spent 7 long years asking the leaders of Michigan's two largest atv clubs...just what that very opinion actually was...to no avail.

"...I dont beleive for ONE SECOND that because the President of ATV OFF ROAD has a differant opinion on trail width than me, that he is 'in bed' with the cyclists and has 'sold out' the ATVers in his club..."

Again, Bill...I asked yet another simple question years ago when Michigan atv club members were asked to join the state motorcycle club in order to perform maintenace on "their" trails.
The question was this....would sending our money to cyclists influence our atv club's political decisions?
While the answer was obviously "why no, never!"....not two years later; these same atv leaders were unashamedly begging cyclists to become a 'sub-chapter' of their organization.

"...I think he truly believes that we dont need a 60 inch trail in Michigan and is sold on the idea that wider will be a more unsafe trail. You can thank the cyclists for bringing the 'unsafe' issue to the table though...."

No atv leader in this community has had the guts to comment publicly on this matter for several years now, Muddy....yet I'll be damned if we'll allow our leadership to believe a 60" width is "unsafe"...yet blame said concept/opinion on 'the cyclists' as if we were all nothing but a bunch of puppets.

"...What needs to happen here is that a colalition of riders who DO want a multi-use trail need to ORGANIZE into something like the MMRC and start forming meetings of their own to counteract the AMA and the BS spread by groups like them...."

Muddy, you're the only Michigan atver in this state willing to strap a set on and comment here concerning this....so if nobody from the largest two atv clubs in Michigan has the nuts to even so much as post this conversation on their forums...what kind of "stand-up" individuals are you referring to here?
We've got 750 miles of trail here in Michigan that not a damn atver in this state gives a crap enough about to ask just one simple question of its orv leadership:
Just what in the hell do <u>you</u> feel should be done with this unprecedented mileage...and just what are you advising our DNR that WE want it to look like?

You can ask folks to join your "I've seen the light" movement all day long, Muddy...yet if they don't witness even formerly half-assed 'involved' riders get excited about FAR more mileage than even the internationally known H/M system boasts today?...you sure as hell aren't going to get them fired up about also fighting the arrogant 2-wheeled idiots this community has met in this thread...anytime soon.

 

What's being "accomplished" here...is this light 4-wheeled community's first look at how you cycle guys respond to simple conversation regarding just who refuses to get along with who concerning working together/<U>using</U> the same trail system.

These guys up here know that there isn't a damn one of them that has ever had beef one against the motorcycling community...and never will.

Yet they are getting damn tired of national organizations (led by cycle sympathizers) including "them" in describing the divide we presently face within our community...and how "we" are just as guilty at causing this to happen.

You can't be an arrogant user continually fighting for land all to yourself...yet expect everybody else in this light wheeled community to not only ride what's "left over"...but by god allow you to ride...them <U>all</U>.

It's your legacy, guys....I just personally hate to see you waste it over pure arrogance and selfishness...when your past deeds coupled with actually partnering with the rest of us on true multi-use trail systems...could've cemented same, without question. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-sad.gif[/img]