Is there a way for a poll to reflect the thoughts of State of Michigan ORV users?I wonder if the DNR could run a poll of registered ORV users? I understand the BAr and Grill Forum is read by many people from all over, but why not let that poll reflect the overall consensus of ORV operators?

 

There was a concerted effort to avoid such a poll in the years proceeding the announcement of this latest update plan.
Dr. Nelson admitted <u>in</u> <u>public</u> that he was actually forced to work with less research money than what was given to him on any previous plan in years past of this magnitude.
Each and every time I brought this fact forward to both the state and these cyclists (who sure as hell didn't want the 'peon public' weighing in with any far-reaching and actual user-related <u>majority</u> opinion)...it was met with either total silence or the kind of character disparaging crap you've witnessed for 22 pages now.

You can't bring opinions forward from the people who buy stickers...if the very people selling those stickers don't care to bring those <u>majority</u> opinions forward ...<u>in</u> <u>the</u> <u>first</u> <u>place</u>.

Again, I'm not sure if this light 4-wheeled community appreciates the love-hate relationship between these "low-impact" cyclists and our largely "green(ie)" state employees. If you can simply extend the term of a national motorcycle association advisory board chairman behind closed doors.....v.s. ANY kind of proven poll supported policy or forced relationship with the land raping 4-wheeled riders that both of these groups flat out despise...which direction would you choose?.

By the way, go here http://www.michigan.gov/documents/Pa...6_133092_7.pdf and take a look at this "blank" questionaire. Why in the hell would you think it is "blank" in the first place (after being distributed for what should be publicly viewable <u>input</u>)...and why do you think most of the questions on it (please note the last) are left perpetually 'unanswered'...from year to year here in Michigan?. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-sad.gif[/img] (then click on the bottom 3 statewide studies done over the <u>past</u> 27 years ...and tell me how in the hell any one of them has any relevance as to what is happening TODAY on our trail system).

 

BBalled, I'd certainly like to see the results of that survey posted somewhere, it ceratinly asked some pretty pointed questions. If it were available, it might open a few eyes... ours included.

If this is a MI state questionare, I'd have to commend whoever put it together. It certainly hits on several points that I think the majority of us have advocated over the past. Things like education programs, trail building/maintenence standards (Although they do not define them here, itt does suggest there is one) It mentions trail building techniques, where surveys are done to identify problem areas such as water crossings, bridge and boardwalk areas, side slope areas etc... All techniques I believe should be integrated into any new trail design, and a standard that existing trails should be maintanied at or retrofitted to.

It suggests that there is a standard by which it can measure the maintenence work being performed. A grade so to speak. Programs are in place to take advantage of several types of labor, be it volunteer or paid, grants etc.

It goes into education , it goes into law enforcement, it even shows that state programs are in place that will provide funding for law enforcement, trail maintenence, eduation etc.

In short, a pretty comprehensive program on the surface.

Now if they could only desin a survey for riders, and not local governments to gather opinions that mean something... and make it available to residents, ie advertise it, then you might finally get somewhere. ALL groups like the MMRC would be banned from participation or sponsirship... Their members could respond, but no arm twisting on behalf of x number of people could be applied. Keep it on an individual basis... one vote, one person deal.

 

You point to a sample survey and demand to know why it's blank. It's blank because it is the _sample_ surveys sent out to conduct the Draft Plan study. The pages you refer include several surveys, some sent to the FMFM Trail Analysts, some sent to county sheriffs, some to other States. If you pull up pages 22 through 40 of the Draft Plan, you will see the compiled answers to the survey questions from just the TAs.

 

Full Draft Plan here:

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/OR...n_133074_7.pdf

Includes compiled results from each of those surveys.

 

Draggin, With all do respect. I do believe your a bit of base confusing trail damage from a motorcycle to that of an ATV. DO cyclist create ruts, Of course, but the main Focus of a cyclist is not to create impassable bogs with their cycle, it would be counter productive.
Now, ATV's on the other hand, have 29" Mud tires, 4 wheel drive, and winches to get even further into the mud. If you think Im joking, just look how they are marketed? While only One manufacturer had a utility ATV with a locked front end afew years ago, now Every Manufacturer (except Honda) Has a locked front end? WHat Is the Purpose of this design? Its not used to pull a trailer around the yard. People Buy these machines with increased capabilities, and then get bored and search out terrain and conditions to challenge them. If they Find none, most of the time they make some.
Why should MY trail dollars go to maitain, upgrade, or revise a trail system WHEN MYSELF AND MY PREFERRED CHOICE OF OFFROAD TRAVEL ARE NOT THE CAUSE OF THE DAMAGE?
Sure You can Modify the trails , I do Erosion and sediment control Plans for a living with my line of work, and I can safely tell you, that to LITERALLY DESIGN a trail, AND CONTROL EROSION based on engineering principals would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars for a 20 mile section of trail, and that doesnt include equipment and labor.
Obviously, Rider education is the key to prevent trail damage, But heres the kicker, It always HAS been the key. And its not changed a thing in the last 5 years, If anything its worse.

 

To try and stipulate that cyclists do little ORV damage is very misleading. What further bothers me is who really gives a damn about the enviro damage that may or may not occur on a MARKED trail except for the EXTREME enviro folks. The ATV industry is a multi-million dollar industry and the need for more trails is increasing more every year.Its my opinion that as long as the Off Road user stays on the designated trailway,whats the big deal about mudholes,ruts and other assorted disturbances to that trailway?What else do the enviro folks think an ATV or dirtbike is going to do to a trailway made out of soil?If we dont expect some enviro impact ''on the trail'' with the use of these types of vehicles,than these trails will have to be constructed out of ashalt,and nobody wants that.I mean,COME ON,I dont think we need to worry so much about a mudpit in the middle of a designated trailway. I dont think ANYONE will have plans to construct a K-Mart or Doctors office over the same area in the near future,so WHAT THE BIG DEAL?All the 100s of miles of FORESTS in the same area of a designated trail,and SOMEBODY just has to bitch about the damage an ORV might do on a LITTLE patch of forest land.

Get over it!

 

Muddy, Does it bother me? No, I can always go around, but in going around, I have created another trail that will be folowed, thus getting off the designated trail system. This leads to Braiding of the trails and illegal trails. This is what the Enviro groups Hang on, Photograph and petition against, (as well as many legal trails as you well know).
Other problems stem from the fact I stated in a previous posts, and that is the fact that these new machines have incredible capabilities, and few will ever be challenged on a legal , family style, trail system. Most folks wont buy a 800 Sportsman, or BF 750 to leisurely ride down a trail, yet this segment of ATVS is tied for the fastest growing segment. These machines are marketed for their powerful engines, great ground clearance and superb 4x4 capability. Hardly any of which is needed on a 60 inch wide family style trail.

 

Not sure where you were going with this.. The DNR is very concerned about a "little" mud on a trail, let alone a monstrous pit. Don't forget Gladwin is 3/4 shut down right now due to mud and it was the DNR that did the shutting down, with no outside greenie help.

 

Not sure I follow your argument KTMguy... A narrow tire/wheel will cut faster and deeper than an ATV tire any day of the week, that is physical science at work there.. I mean by their own definition, the ATV tire places less force per square inch on the ground than a dirt bike. I will concede one point though.. and that is you have to put a caveat on there about conditions. I'll admit that when the weather is bad, and raining, or muddy, you know, when a dirt bike is nearly impossible to ride because the mud is just too slick to control it, that is when an ATV is just starting to have fun... and that will contribute to the damage... I'll agree with you there

But it isn't all on the ATV... that is rider awareness and responsibility at work there... not the machine itself.

Also, I have seen the knobbies on dirt bikes do their fair share of damage too, and I remember buying larger knobbies so I could get more traction in my racing days, even cutting the knobbies between race dates to make sure I have sharp cutting surfaces...

Please understnad, I have been saying all along that the majority of damage can be mitigated if the trails are built and maintained so that there isn't any standing water to create that hole in, in the first place.

Rather than get wrapped around the damage issue, or the enforcement issue, or the safety/speed issue, which I think all have had holes blasted in the theories used to support such nonsense, I think the real question is how do you make the best use of funds available in building and maintaining trails. More ATV trails mean more trails for cyclists too... so why would you be against that? We get back to the same old problem of wanting the cake and eating it too attitude that the cycle crowd is putting forth. Understand this, the ATV crowd welcomes you with open arms to trails that they use... why can't the cycle crowd return the favor? I guess it is a matter of respect... For those of us that own both, I'd sure like to ride all areas, and use whatever feels good under my butt that day... and not have that decision made for me due to trail width... BUt in no way will anyone convince me that building a trail to 50 inch, or 60 inch is going to take away from the experience... it certainly can't be any worse than fighting my way through a trail that I had ot cut my bars to make them narrower so I can fit the trail... that is nuts. Plain nuts.

About the only argument you can make is that the number of injuries for cycles are way less than ATV's, and to that I say that is because there hundreds more ATV's out there than dirt bikes on the trails... and that is the real burr under your saddle.. nothing more, nothing less...

I have one question for you... why are you arguing for the rights of cyclists, and following the actions and thoughts of the ATV crowd, on an ATV website, if you do not intend to further the rights of ATV riders? Are you here to argue, or cause the ATV crowd to become split? I don't think it is working.....