BB, This DAMAGE is one of the Key reasons cyclists dont fully support ATV trail systems. As the Picture dictates, It could be 1 mile or 3,000 miles of trail , and it could be a mile wide. The point is that These ATVS, and I know because I own two of them, Can cause significant trail damage when put in the hands of youthful, or foolhearty riders who wish to "explore" their machines capabilities. You just Cant get that through your head?
Then, These Bad areas breed trails to go "around" them, thus now a 60 inch trail is 12 inches in areas, and nearly impassible in the center. I cant BELEIEVE the idiocracy of folks on here sayin " Whats the Big Deal"
Whats the Big deal? After several years of developing and paying for a trail system, it's Sad to see miles of it shut down because of Trail Damage, thats really "no big deal. Motorcycles do not create the damage you see in those pictures on a regular basis, however ATV's do. I was a Member of the trailscouts BEFORE there was a Hatfield Mccoy Trail system. I can tell you first hand how mild fun trails have degraded into nothing but one 3 foot deep 10 foot wide hole after another on some sections of trail. Why, as a Cyclist should I pay the same access fee as the ATVS when, because of trail damage I cannot access all the trails?

 

QUOTE by Jeramey*
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.End of Quote*

NOBODY within ANY ATV/ORV club has the right to speak out on behalf of the majority of its members on what they feel is best for the organization WITHOUT first requesting VOTES on the subject matter at hand. Doing ANYTHING less than taking a vote on the issue at hand is SECOND GUESSING and very deceiving to the organization you represent.
[can you tell im a Union guy?]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

KTM Quote*
Why, as a Cyclist should I pay the same access fee as the ATVS when, because of trail damage I cannot access all the trails.End of Quote*

Is'nt it funny you should bring that up? In Michigan, cyclist and ATVers ALL pay the same 16.25 sticker fee to access the 3100 miles of designated trail we have. The cyclist can access EVERY SINGLE mile of this 3100 miles of trail and even have 26 of their OWN 24 inch trails to ride.Now you know how the ATVers in this State feel because you just answered your OWN question.

The ATVers feel your pain here in Michigan. We pay the same price to use the 3100 miles of designated trails as the cyclists do,but yet,because of width restrictions, the ATVers cannot fit on a 24 inch cycle trail.Why shoud the ATVers pay for ALL 3100 miles of trail when we cant access ALL OF IT?-------------THINK ABOUT IT!

And to say that the ATVers do the most trail damage is absolutely the craziest thing I've ever heard regarding Off Road use . Sure,they do damage,but so do the cyclists. ATVers CLEARLY out number cyclist in Michigan,so sure,I suppose we would do more damage because we make up for a larger user base.

 

Out of a 3000 Plus mile system, Cyclist get a whopping 24 miles of single track?
I wonder how many mudholes they must go around to get to that whopping 24 miles?
I also Wonder How much of THEIR sticker fees go to maintain trails that they dont destroy to the same levels of ATVS? I truly Believe ATVS should pay a Higher Fee, They have additional requirements, maintanance and planning involved than that of a cycle, and 24 miles of single track over a 3,000 mile trail system STILL does not financially offset the higher dollar per use fees cyclist are paying.

 

No, that's a misunderstanding. There's 1100 miles listed at 50" and 1000 listed at 40". A good majority of the 40" trails have become 50" and have not had their designation changed. 40" trails are to be maintained at 24" on the ground.

 

2TRAKR- So the 19 people who voted against widening of trails in your club,constitute a majority of the 101 listed members in your club. Interesting twist of numbers. It seems like a few of you are using the clubs membership numbers to advance your personal ideas. Apathy does not constitute approval and you barely had 40% participation in your poll! You people couldn't stand a open vote, so you pulled the thread from the public forum again. Perhaps your club members SHOULD think of a leadership change to better reflect their actual views.If your position on trail width were different, your club might have a dramatic increase in membership.

 

Thanks for the clarification 2TrakR.

 

Gee, do we really want to debate the statistical relevancy regarding the poll here? 40% participation is pretty darn good and that's of the 104 registered members of the site. Doesn't include those members who are not online/on the board.
The numbers were 16 for, 20 against and 2 didn't care.

Perhaps, perhaps not. Most that get all riled up about wanting wider trails don't ride [much] to begin with and have very little experience out on the ground. Generally they are not after a physical/technical experience that a trail provides and are much happier on forest roads, county roads and ORV Routes.

 

Im not going to get into a real big debate with Jeramey over club votes. Jeramey is someone who has alot of ORV history and is someones opinion that I will respect and listen to,even if my perception of it is differant.The guy has a wealth/history of ORV knowledge and I often have to ask him questions to issues I did'nt understand.I thank him for his assistance and im glad I know him.

After about 25 pages of this stuff,I will say this though on behalf of John Stears. John is not as dumb as some of us may want to perceive him as being,it is his method of operation that I often question though.. He has brought to light some issues in this VERY topic to a few,ME included. One very important issue he is responsable for is how BLIND the ATVers in this State are to the politics of their sport.The cyclists DO run the show in Michigan and its been that way for a LONG time. Until the ATVers in the State of Michigan get ***** enough to say they've HAD IT, the cyclist will always be in the way of our forward progress with respect to a multi-use trail system.

Sure,we've made alot of forward progress from alot of hard working individules in respect to county road openings in the last few years,which is an excellant start,however,we've even hit a roadblock with that when we factor in that PA300 gets right in the way of this ordinance if you dont have a drivers license.We've made strides forward with safety training,however,now I find myself questioning the DNR's slow motion attitude with bringing these classes forward.

In order for ATVers to get this multi-use trail system, its going to take leadership from a mass amount of ATVERS who understand the history behind this trail monopoly,and lots of them. Far to many ATVers like to bitch and moan over what they dont have with respect to trails,but few of them are ready to say they've HAD IT and are ready to organize with club leaders that know HOW to fight for what they beleive in.Until than,the trail monopoly continues!

 

Sorry, my response concerning 2-Trakkr's assertion that every atv leader in this super-secret MMRC is actually "elected" and that atv clubs with no political positions before they join his motorcycle club are just as "representative"....got deleted by mistake.

 

I understand that MATVA does not have an elected President; I don't know this for certain and don't know if he was the one who gave input. ATVOC has elected leadership as do the other organizations that gave input to MMRC.
No ATV clubs have joined any of the cycle clubs to date. I hope both groups continue to work together and join forces in the future.

I suppose your response to the questionnaire rants from early were deleted too once you found the very premise your complaint was based on was refuted in black & white in the very same document?