Draggin, FIrst of all, I ride several Bikes, and a few ATVS. I thoroughly Enjoy BOTH sports.
I bring alot of this up because it seems ATVERS cant understand why cyclist dont welcome them with open arms.
You asked this question Specifically, And what I am attempting to say ( and probably not doing a good job at it) is that True Cyclist like smaller, more narrow trails. And while an ATV trail can accomodate a cyclist, a single track trail cant accomodate an ATV, and I believe MOST cyclist, Including myself prefer that.
It has to do with the width of atvs, the width of trails required to operate them, and the fact that many (not all obviously) seek out parts of the trail and simply destroy them. It doesnt take much, two 4x4 ATVS with Mud tires can turn a soft spot on a Cycle trail to the point of making it impassable for cyclist without them venturing off the trail.
SO its not RAMPANT abuse by atv's, It only takes a few machines, and a Few days of playing to do this damage.
So, IMO, this is a large part of why cylist dont "welcome with open arms" ATVS onto their trails.
I enjoy riding My atv on trail systems, the Beach, and in the mountains. BUT, I also Enjoy my single track, and I think your going to be hard pressed to convince a bunch of cyclist that their user fees are best spent on trails 60 Inches wide, when in fact a trail 36" wide would be MUCH less expensive, easier to maintain, and better suited to their needs.
I see nothing wrong with providing trails for individual needs, and if you have 35 miles of 60" wide trail, I dont think using funds to create 7-10 miles of single track (which would be much cheaper) should be out of the question.
OR you could base sticker fees on the type of machine you ride, for instance, ATVS, and RUVS require wider trails, and more trail maintenance, so maybe their sticker fees should be 40$, while a cycles fee should be $30

 

Jeramey,
I understand WHO's doing all the griping about the mud holes and mudpits on the ORV trails,what I dont understand is WHY?

Here we have a tiny little trail in the middle of probably 100s if not 1000s of acres of forest land with a trail that just happens to have alot of mudpits on it [like the north loop of Gladwin],something many ORV users enjoy alot. Now the DNR and forest service,along with every enviro group in the world,wants to pitch a bitch about this so called damage as though there will never be ANY forest land left because of it! A heavy rain pours for days and swamps out some of a trail, or a massive amount of snow just melted and causes alot of water buildup,now all of a sudden,the same trail we rode for 25 yrs is a designated Wet Land area.Lands we been riding for years get CLOSED down to protect some backward walking,16 and a half legged,rare species of spider,to protect it from extinction. Alot of BS if you ask most ORV operators,me included.

Now,im NOT advocating getting OFF a designated trail,but im getting real sick and tired of the DNR and other enviro freaks bitching about the mudholes that are on current designated trails as if these guys are just getting ready to build a Super Shopping Center right over the top of every one of them.

The forests belong to everybody and its time we let the enviro folks know it.

 

Ok Jeremy I agree, but I also say that put a dirt bike in the same area under the same conditions, and put a rider who doesn't ride responsibly, and you will also get the same kind of damage. I admit I have never run an GNCC, but I have seen the same results on TV after a bunch of dirt bikes go through a wet spot... I don't think that is a very strong argument.

If we were talking about one third of new trails being built to bike standards, I can see some reasoning.. It doesn't sit with my stance over mixed use trails, fiscal responsibility etc, but for the sake of argument, I'll run with it... but that is the problem.... we are not talking 15 miles of trails. I thought I heard the 750 mile figure being kicked around, and the proposal was for all of it to be single track. ( I MAY BE MIXING TWO ISSUES HERE)

Then the MMRC quickly pulled out their false representation and had a bill that would make any new trails to be built mandatory at the wider width killed... hmm... now maybe you see why some are all in arms over it.. I know I certainly would be.

The MMRC also has proven itself by it's actions and responses to be completely behind doors with their discussions, and actions.. Again a stike against them. And gleefully remarking that their actions killed the bill in 24 hours. Again, something that ATV'rs whom they claim to represent were unaware of until it was too late. So it is no wonder ATV riders are suspect of Cyclists. It isn't that they want an all out war with them, but I think they are tired of being treated like th eugly step child. Like it or not, they are the majority right now.. by a large margin.

And I don't know, the dirt bike in my shed has a bar length close to or equal to my ATV width... definately more than the 24 inch rule would support... I doubt I'd be able to ride those trails any way.... I just can't see cutting bars for any reason...

 

[quote]
Originally posted by: 2TrakR
"...You point to a sample survey and demand to know why it's blank...."

You've got to be a little slicker than that, 2-trakkr....I point to those surveys and demand to know why the "blank" versions are all that this public sees of the actual replies to same. There is no secret here as to the tough questions being asked on that survey..yet it is the 'blank' answers to many of them...which tell the story of true community involvement in these same issues

(2-Trakkr):
"...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...."

Pages 20 to 40 refer only to trail conditions; illegal uses and conflicts...not 90% of the questions actually asked on that questionaire!.
Again, HOW STUPID DO YOU BELIEVE US TO BE?
As throughout this thread, you cycle guys tend to "ignore" the most shameful and glaring aspects of this mess <u>you</u> <u>preside</u> over...yet cling to whatever little branch you can grab on to....while the whole damn tree is falling down...with you in it!. (twigs that get 'lopped off' in short order anyways; as you just witnessed above!).

<u>Ignore</u> the last question regarding the need for a published statewide orv user study on that questionaire.... <u>all</u> <u>you'd</u> <u>like</u>, 2-trakkr [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img]....because when the light 4-wheeled community finally shames you cycle boys into forcing those in the majority purchasing a sticker into answering one?...the house of cards falling down here will be NOTHING compared to the public finally viewing your cycle community giving the rest of us 'the finger' over finally taking our land <u>back</u>. (pretty tough to gain much public sympathy for a motorcycle group who suddenly "refuses" to clean up/get behind the modern maintenance needed to maintain modern day multi-use trail systems.).

Again, we would really hate to see anybody in this community 'act' like that over losing majority power/money/influence in this massive multi-million dollar orv maintenance program...yet 'hey'...it's <u>your</u> legacy and your reputation at stake here (and soon to be <u>your</u> stage when the word finally gets out as to just what has been happening behind this curtain). [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-sad.gif[/img]

 

Here's [below] the type of damage caused by ATVs that is being referred to. Again, see my previous post where I do not condemn all ATV riders, there is a minority of "true" violators that cause issues for all of us. The fact is that this small percentage possess the machines and the capability to do massive amounts of "damage".

One of the decks we built to get over a low area. Note the ATV ruts alongside the deck, purposely playing in the mud instead of staying on the trail:
http://www.gldsmc.org/GladwinTrail/IMG_0056.jpg

Another rutted out spot, note the braided trail created to avoid this spot. Consider the effort put forth to rut this section given it's relatively high elevation:
http://www.gldsmc.org/GladwinTrail/IMG_0061.jpg

Here's the major one. This is an old railroad grade. The swamp pits you see used to be high and dry, over time they became slightly muddy and after a season or two of hardcore mudders, you see the results:
http://www.gldsmc.org/GladwinTrail/IMG_0065.jpg

Note the first and last picture was from inside my truck while on the trail.

You are mixing issues. One person at the MMRC meeting thought all the new trail should be single track. The majority opinions at that meeting leaned towards mostly trail with some Route. Trail not specifically meaning single track; I believe the majority was for 50" trail.
The DNR has no plans for this new [750] mileage and may "weasel out of it". We don't know. I am not aware of any groups having actually sent in a proposal for new mileage let alone made determinations of what type or where.
Bill made mention of this earlier and he's spot on - even if the DNR does get to the point where they will put in x miles of new trail or route, it will be years in the process for it to happen with the planning, environmental assessments, ecological reviews, ESA determinations and so on.

Nope. The bill would not have required all new trails to be built to 60". MMRC's represented groups did provide a no-support position for the bill - read that again, the ATV clubs in MMRC did not support that bill. Individuals within those clubs may have differing opinions, as Bill [Muddy4Life] does, but the club's position was still provided to MMRC.
As I've said before, this bill was set to be railroaded through the legislative process and required immediate action as it was set to be put on the floor just days after introduction. Similar bills have been killed after being in existence for years with plenty of commenting and input from all User groups.

40" at the handlebars, not 24". If you can't fathom cutting the bars, you will never understand the desire many cyclist have for tighter trail. I can't explain it to you. Just the same way many can't understand the need for [some] ATVs to play in the mud. As long as you comprehend that there is a need and a desire in both groups for such activity, you will go a long way in furthering the sport instead of forcing a wedge between them.

 

You've yacked quite a bit about what you don't want to see, yet the information for all of the questionnaires are in the Draft Plan. You can ignore their summation in that same Plan and use it as more evidence of the black helicopters that are coming for you, but common sense held by most others will show just how childish your statements have become.

Pages 83 to 86 include the questionnaire sent to other States, the results are summarized on page 45. Same for the other questionnaires listed, each is summarized earlier in the report.

That was the questionaire sent to other States (again, see page 45). Quoting from the Draft Plan, to answer your question:
Only 6 (23%) have a state ORV plan.

 

Quote by Jeramey*
Nope. The bill would not have required all new trails to be built to 60". MMRC's represented groups did provide a no-support position for the bill - read that again, the ATV clubs in MMRC did not support that bill. Individuals within those clubs may have differing opinions, as Bill [Muddy4Life] does, but the club's position was still provided to MMRC.
End of Quote*

Part of the above statement is EXACTLY what I meant when I said that NO ATV club in the entire State of Michigan really knows WHAT width its members support because there has never been an OPEN vote with even one ATV club we have in Michigan regarding this. With that said,what gives ANY ATV club leader the right to step in on HB5343 and tell the legislators what their CLUB does or does not support in respect to this bill?THEY DONT REALLY KNOW!

Based on what my past students have told me in the past since 2001,the largest majority of ATV riders do indeed want a WIDER trail.

 

[quote]
Originally posted by: 2TrakR
This is why these 2 groups are so far a part as far as how see it. As a serious dirt bike rider I laugh at the term "multi use trail". If you are a serious dirt bike rider they are a road. And why would a dirt bike rider work with a group who wants to turn all their trails into roads? This will probubly not be to popular in here. However if there were a attempt to turn the majority of single track trails into roads in my riding areas. And the alternative was for all to lose riding areas. I say close them all. Whats the point of me working towards closing the trails I like so a bunch of guys on quads are happy?

 

That is why they are elected and listen to their membership. They act on what they believe to be the majority opinion or what is best for the organization. You may disagree with the particular issue of the day, but the elected officers believe they are making statements and decisions that reflect the majority of the organization. It's also why there are elections within these clubs - if you and most others disagree with the positions the Club has gone, you can vote them out and vote in somebody else that you hope will share your views.
Example: The AMA has taken on a national campaign to increase the fines, jail time, penalties and related items for accidents where a cyclist is involved, particularly where a car hits a cycle. I fully disagree with those types of laws and the position of the AMA on such items. They are still pushing this agenda and those elected officials in the AMA are doing what they believe the majority of their membership wants.

From my perspective, your views are currently the minority opinion of ATVOC regarding widening the trails. Does not make them wrong. Does not detract from the actions of any club's leadership in their actions either.

 

Originally posted by: 2TrakR
"...Here's [below] the type of damage caused by ATVs that is being referred to....The fact is that this small percentage possess the machines and the capability to do massive amounts of "damage"..."

I just love it when the cyclists accepting the majority of my sticker money to perform trail maintenance...continually harp about "the damage caused by atvs" and the capability to do "massive amounts" more on a three thousand mile system...yet who are the first ones to naysay the use of 60" wide modern equipment or the type of "for-profit" privatized contracters...that would effectively yank that money out of their single use hands.

Again, how two-faced does it get?
Flat out ignore the fact that nobody can even financially estimate the cost of what has already been affected to date...yet try like hell to push 25% more mileage through...because by gosh it just might include some more "me only" single track and maybe a "holy grail" big city pay-to-play?

I don't know what makes me sicker when it comes to this orv community being viewed as good citizens of our environment...these guys or the greenies. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-sad.gif[/img]