Busy rider... I think everyone who has spoken with me can attest to the fact that I usually am willing to listen to both sides of an argument... and I am really trying to take the middle ground on this discussion and give everyone the benefit of the doubt here.... BUT YOUR LAST COMMENT says a busload to me regarding attitudes.

Wit a few words you conveyed to me that just because there wasn't a large response to your "Stirring the POT" thread, that we few that did try to get a dialog started have now been converted to a "NOT WORTH MY TIME" classification. That sort of raises the hackles on the back of even MY NECK, not to mention BBalled's.

If this is the sort of attitude you take towards those you supposedly represent, it really makes what BBalled is saying have a lot more weight.

I certainly hope you are man enough to apologise to not only the members on this list who are actively trying to make a change, but to those that you supposedly represent. It was uncalled for... and petty. You have certainly lost credability with the masses here...

 

You have about as much chance of Dick anwering that question as you would of asking him how much trail mileage should forever be set aside ONLY for their holy annointed two-wheelers.

Again, this has been my entire point for years. Dick and his extremely small band of merry men have been shaping what this orv system will look like in the future BEHIND closed doors for years.

And if you want somebody deciding those issues for you who sat there and said <u>nothing</u> while his cycling buddies proposed that the 'next' trail system we build be 100 miles of "motorcycle only" mileage in the Huron National Forest....then I guess don't be surprised when they build the next big one just outside Detroit that effectively sucks your maintenance dollars away from the rest of this system already in shameful disrepair with no modern equipment on the ground.

If he does answer your question....tell me afterwards if he actually "answers" it...or not. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img]

 

Continuing my response to Dick's first post:
[quote]
Originally posted by: BusyRider
"...Don't care if you 2, 4 or six wheels. We are going to have areas of disagreement. That don't mean we have to be disagreeable. End result will be, we agree far more, than we disagree...."

Ask the Argo people or Representative Hildenbrand (the author whose recent bill was intentionally misrepresented) how "agreeable" Dick and the DNR have been in allowing utility vehicles on the rest of our system over the years.
Ask me how "disagreeable" and just plain ARROGANT these guys have been to anybody asking the simplest of questions over that same time period.
And finally, ask him just what has been publicly "agreed" upon concerning the future layout of our trail system and what will be used to properly maintain it when we are all dead and gone.


"...We all want more trail, we all want it to be better maintained, we all want it so we don't get lost and we hate a ticket....."

The thing Dick doesn't like to talk about here is that he's got people breathing down his neck that care about more trail alright...more trail for themselves and themselves only for cyclists who could care less if a trail is maintained by anything other than simple manual labor ...at a reimbursed rate equal to using heavy equipment.
And as far as getting 'lost' because of a lack of trail mileage? That has nothing to do with ticket writing and he knows it.

"...We want to be able to at least be able to get food, gasoline and a reasonable distance from either lodging or camping while enjoying this recreational activity. Better yet, we would like the priviledge of riding from our home, if we live in northern Michigan, or riding from our motel or campground to the trail....."

Sure, we want all of that, Dick....yet if your group is not willing to QUANTIFY THE DAMAGE WE HAVE NOW AND WHAT WE NEED DOLLAR-WISE TO NOT ONLY FIX IT BUT MAINTAIN SAME IN THE FUTURE...why do you think this community should allow you to expand it further into places like Detroit?
Is it because the lion's share of you live just outside the big-city suburbs....and that you could care LESS about unbelievably proposing the closure of "hopelessly ruined" trails...and laying "new ones" to ruin right down beside them?
You might lead a lot of these selfish city-slickers around with the promise of this and that....yet I will sit here and fight for the fair evaluatiuon of what we already have....striving for a sound estimation of fixing same and forecasting what we need to fix as time moves along (heck, we could use that $4 million up today in a second just on restoration projects for over 3,000 miles of trails....AND YOU KNOW IT).

"....Having been deeply involved in ORV activity for over two decades, both with motorcycles and ORV's. Own a 230 Honda, wife has a TT125 and we both enjoy our 400 MAX. Live one mile from the trailhead and it irks me to no end, we have to trailer everything but the Honda..."


Get over it, Dick; as you sound like these 'city boys' who want this big riding area built right out their back doors...while guys like me in southwest Michigan have come to ACCEPT the fact that we will travel to our less economically fortunate regions north of here to spread our money around as the snowmobiler's and every other tourist in the history of this state has ever done.
You can't ride out your back door?....well then show this state that you are responsible enough to fix what you have; not cry about needing over 750 more miles you don't even have the equipment to bust that out with....let alone to maintain the 3,000 you 'forgot' about.

"...Facing us in a big way is this "Healthy Forest Initiative". We have not seen but the very beginning of this yet. You had best get yourself educated on this and "prepare for the worst and hope for the best"....."

I'll deal with the treee huggers when I can show them that I can already properly maintain the land they cry about. If you think I'm going to defend a guy who thinks tackling the "Healthy Forest Initiative" is all about closing one trail down for "study" and then busting an entire new one out right beside it...it's no small wonder these people look at us in the manner they do.
What's next?...jumping into bed with these same tree huggers after they tear your rape of the land idea to shreds in debate...while about-face claiming that 'actually'...cyclists have "far less impact than those terrible 4-wheelers" on these same forests...to save your own *****?

Ran out of time.... (to be cont.)

 

By the way, my only contact with anybody from AMA District 14 (supposedly the largest in the country) in a "man-to-man" setting...was one very brief encounter involving some guy with a toothpick hanging out of his mouth and his head cocked to one side.
This was basically a one-way conversation bragging about how "they" (the cyclists) were even having success 'negotiating' with these tree-huggers as to possibly letting them in on the "non-motorized" trails as well....giving them yet "another" exclusive place to ride that nobody else could lay a tire on! (we could only wish that they put this much effort into working together with everybody else).

Gosh, was "I" impressed...and went away with the feeling that these guys would sell their mother down the road...if this meant more places where they...and only they....could travel. (the rest of this bunch have simply been just so plain arrogant...that you couldn't get a hand extended in greeting if you grabbed it first). [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-sad.gif[/img]

 

I think I am beginning to see something that is ponderous come to light. Am I correct to assume that we have a two wheeled enthusiast (With agendas) representing four wheeled interests in MI... (Who's actions are being questioned)

IF what BBalled is saying has even a little truth to it, it looks to me to be a MAJOR CONFLICT OF INTEREST if there is a proposal to close a shared use trail in lieu of building a single track trail.....

How does that benefit the ATV enthusiast?

Is it true the term of board appointees is up for renual? If so, is this a veiled attempt to generate positive responses to use to win an additional term? And when it failed, provide the impetus of why the subject (THat you started) no longer is worth your time?

HMMM ......

BBALLED, I appologise for anything negative I thought or may have said about you..... No wonder you are fighting mad... At least you stand up and are not afraid to be counted....

I can't understand why the 2 wheeled crowd and the 4 wheel crowd are so polarized at a time when together they should be working to solve the access and maintenence issues.... Talk about splitting the group so it makes it easier to kill them both. Excellent battle tactics if you on the opposing side...

 

I usually try and shut BBALLED Down after the third or forth rant... but since this thread was started by someone who apparently was appointed to "represent" the affaris of off road enthusiasts, and it also appears that personal agenda's are coming to light that would put the "equal representation for all enthusiasts" in question, I think I want to listen to more of what he has to say.

It sure seems like there is something that doesn't smell right here....

Anyone else in MI feel the same? If so, I suggest you get personally involved and do a little research on your own and formulate your own unbiased opinions... If teh acusations prove true, I also recommend complaining LOUDLY to the DNR about it.

 

[quote]
Originally posted by: Dragginbutt
"...if there is a proposal to close a shared use trail in lieu of building a single track trail..."

I might not have been clear; yet these guys are actually proposing shutting down trails they deem "irrepairable"...for the simple reasoning that if we as enthusiasts actually purchase and fund a privatized maintenance system....these boys (the cyclists) will be forced to simply follow this 21st century machinery around like the rest of us should be forced to do...AND LOSE ALL THAT MONEY brought in maintaining these things all these years by basically manual labor (which is the main reason they got screwed up in the first place).

Building that 100 mile single track trail was something they tried to convince the DNR that "the public" needed more than anything else in our already single-track laden system...yet they fortunately failed to do so with absolutely no commentary one way or another from our cycle dominated advisory board.(who sit there like a bump on a log the vast majority of the time we are so "honored" to meet with them once every 3 or 6 months).

 

Being that you come from the state where the city of New Holland is located, do you sometimes feel like you are chasing windmills?

 

From what Ive read in dirt bike publications is that the 2 wheel crowd spent a lot of years getting a excellent trail system in place and now the 4 wheel guys want to take over based on the number of atv/quad sales lately.

 

I read BR's statement that "as only BB has been chiming in, then there wasn't much to comment on". If you want to continue the discussion, or one of the other members of this site do, then I'd assume he would be more than happy to keep talking. He even offered his home address and phone so one could discuss such things outside of this forum, if so desired. That's they way I read it..

I believe that would be an incorrect assumption. Representation on the ORV Advisory Board is quite varied. Their bios are available here:
http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7...3974--,00.html

Pretty big "if". There have been no proposals to close an ATV trail and replace it with "single track". There was discussion on a case study to see what the impacts of closing an existing high-use trail and putting in new trail nearby of same length, size, environment. This was supported by many ORV proponents to show that old trail can be closed and regenerated (ie back to the forest) and new trail can be put in to keep the trail in better shape (less whoops). Ideally we'd prevent trail from getting "worn out" by moving it every x years (say 5). Here in Michigan the soil is mostly sand. Once the top layer of soil is gone (that containing the root/sod structure) the underlying sand whoops-out very quickly. It takes quite a bit of traffic through a trail before the top layer is compeletely gone, but once it is, most consider the trail "worn out" and grading becomes a near constant need.

No, that's not true. There are two members of the ORV AB who's terms expire one year from now. One of them has expressed interest in _not_ running again, unsure of the other.

[/quote]

If you discuss this with anyone other than BB, you will find (97% of the time) there is no conflict as it's conjured up by BB's rhetoric. I agree with you, that to separate these groups and purposely generate false accusations is a great battle tactic of somebody trying to destroy both sides.