The MMRC already told the legislators that they represent about 22.000 users that dont want a wider trail system with HB5343. Funny thing here is that I am an active member of the MMRC and I DO support a 60 inch trail. I also have about 4-5 THOUSAND students/friends of mine from the past that DO support such a trail system. Good thing I keep ALL their phone numbers and addresses.They may come to good use soon?

The Hiawatha National forest and a 24 inch cycle only trail? My information just told me that this new 30 miles of trail has been proposed for the last 5 years and is not suppose to take up any of money out of the ORV sticker funds to support such a trail. If this is funded from another source OTHER than our ORV funds, I suppose I'd have little problem with it. But if ONE PENNY comes out of our ORV sticker fund to make 30 miles of 24 inch cycle trail, you'll not get anything but trouble from me.

 

Sorry, still confused. Are you saying there was a poll for wider trails on the public forums on ATVOC and that somebody moved them?
I've only seen the one poll, in the members only section, and don't recall it starting life anywhere else.
You made mention previously of "Now the thread has been pulled after Chuck told Dana to take care of it." which was in reference to the thread with link I posted above. Was there another poll that you are referring to?

 

2TRAKR-The Bar and Grill Forum WAS in the General Discussion area, and guests could look at it, and post questions until Chuck told Dana to move it. This is your clubs right as long as they don't try to use the number of Guests who look at your site, as people who support the views of the President and 18 others.

 

Ah, ok, I see now. Did not realize Bar & Grill section required registration with that site (had to fire up another browser to see the problem).

 

Now the ATVOFFROAD.NET site has an OPEN vote for ALL to vote on a wider trail and not just members.

Should be interesting!

 

Michigan cyclists are so desperate right now in regards to what has finally been revealed about their behind-the-scenes/anonymous nature; not to mention their exposed refusal to even so much as 'talk' about the disposition of this massive new mileage (and please don't get me started on the twenty-odd other stunts I've witnessed)...that I'm not thinking a few internet votes from the largest AMA district in this country...will be that much of a "problem" with 21 pages of advance publicity.

Call me "pessimistic"...but you've already got them clinging to this member's only poll indicating three atvers who "don't give a damn" (gotta just love these people)...making it 19 to 18 in favor of widening..if they did.

Earlier. they attempted to massage the poll itself (sans figures) to convince us that the entire atving community doesn't want trails any wider than their wheels....and just recently attempted to not only convince us that this poll was always (by god) in one place...but that they haven't actually joined this club in sufficient numbers (even convincing same to join THEIR club) to make independent light 4-wheeled data from this source...almost <u>useless</u> anyways!

They've swayed you off the main topic once again with the 'hope' that atvconnection damn well hurries up concerning the implimentation of this new forum....where hopefully every damn word of this "blasphemy" to the "Gods" of North American motorized recreation...will be swept away forever.

What would you rather have atvers talk about if your sport was in deep decline v.s. theirs..."internet polls"...or just why arrogant minority motorcyclists meet behind closed doors anonymously to represent you and I concerning whether 750 miles of new trail will be laid down as 100% multi-use...or not.

In closing, here's a quick illustration as to just how these guys operate when "the obvious" is straight forwardly presented by an intelligent person such as DB:

Originally posted by: Dragginbutt
"..Fix the person problem, and don't blame the trail...

Response:
"...Well said and very very true. Now how do we fix that person problem? How have you fixed it, how have other areas fixed it? What is "reasonable"?..."

You can't let these guys dazzle you with their b.s. people. This is the same kind of corporate and government spin talk that many of you in professional circles have suffered through in countless meetings throughout your entire lives.
Again, please don't allow simple reasoning such as what DB so eloquently described above concerning arrogant attitudes...to be buried along with this light motorized public's right...to access the very land that we <u>own</u>.(land that these motorcyclists now control anonymously...and as you can now plainly see...behind closed doors).

 

An interesting note.

I just recieved my copy of the Cycle Conservation Clubs [CCC] Trail Rider magazine in which they clearly define TRAIL WIDTH here in Michigan.

50 inch trail is maintained 50 inches at the handlesbars,50 inches at the ground and is useable by BOTH cycles and ATVs.

40 inch inch trail is maintained 40 inches wide at handlebar height but may be as norrow as 24 inches wide at the ground and not wide enough for ATVs. This type of trail is not wide enough for ATVs and IS NOT maintained for such vehicles.END OF QUOTE**
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now lets take another look into this SAME magazine and look at the amount of trails that are classified at 40 inches

1.Beaver Creek- 36 Miles
2.Big O-86 miles
3.Bummers Roost-21 miles
4.Evart-23 miles
5.Grand Traverse north and south-66 miles
6.Holton-25 miles
7.Horseshoe Lake-23.9 miles
8.Lincoln Hills-21 miles
9.Little Manistee-46 miles
10.Long Lake-27 miles
11.Missaukee #1---24 miles
12.Missaukee #2---7 miles
13.Missaukee Junction-18 miles
14.Red Bridge-28 miles
15.Tin Cup Spring-21 miles
16.Tomahawk [A,B and C]-102 miles
17.Bass Lake-26 miles
18.Birch Hill-9 miles
19. Brevort-Trout Lake-63 miles
20.Brevort to Sandtown-54 miles
21.Drummond Island-60 miles
22.Foremena Lake-13 miles
23.Kinross-30 miles
24.Porterfield Lake-22 miles
25.Sandtown-36 miles
26.Silver Creek-34 miles

ALL 26 of these trails are listed at 40 inches....I'll bring you back to the Trail Rider magazine which CLEARLY indicates that 40 inch trail is not wide enough for ATVs and IS NOT maintained for such vehicles.This would indicate at least 26 trails that can be exclusively used by cycles because of their 40 inch width span.

Something is wrong with this picture when the ATV community makes up for the largest part of the ORV fund but yet we cater to the cyclists needs for trail widths.

 

Muddy-Thank you, I found the site and voted.Hopefully everyone will be fair, and only vote once, and we can get a better reading on how people feel.

 

#1...no trail proposal by any orv group in this state should stay a secret for 5 seconds within this community...let alone 5 years...

and #2...claiming that any group within said community should be allowed to strike out on their own concerning any 'ability' to individually finance these "but we're not the land rapers...<u>they</u> are!" proposals...is flat out <u>ludicrous</u>.

This legislator was <u>very</u> clear as to the MANNER in which these motorcyclists approached both him <u>and</u> the powers that be concerning this "only for us" mileage. I was told that the argumnent was clearly put forward as an 'our impact v.s. theirs' issue...and that total overall environmental impact was both the buzzword and supposed selling point in setting this area aside for them....and them <u>only</u>.

One of these days, the atvers in this state are going to get the message that these cyclists are not only two-faced opportunists,,,but that they have absolutely no problem maipulating overall future funding issues in the exact same manner. (witness their assertion that widening our "old' 3,000 mile system is strictly 'cost prohibitive'....yet funding for even more massive mileage,750 total, is not a subject that any one of them feels comfortable taking on..any more than what that mileage should look like...in the first place!).

Sorry, Muddy...but if you allow these cyclists to cowboy their own damn issues outside of this community...you are only giving credence to their assertion that they truly do deserve to jump in and out of same....<u>as</u> <u>it</u> <u>suits</u> <u>them</u>.

 

bigsam,the 1st poll for widning the trails was put up for our club members to vote on.We as board members wanted to know how they felt, so we knew what direction they wanted to go in.Only a few even cared to vote on it, they voted against it,we dropped it, end of story.The therad went away.We arnt running around saying that everybody wants to keep the trails at 50".
Widning all the trails for a poss medical emergency isnt even feasable.Thats what we have helicoptors for.