"What is really going on in Michigan"...evidently equates to "not much"...when you witness major trail mileage announcements made without so much as comment one from anyone here; even when folks are informed that tens of millions of dollars will suddenly be reallocated...and again behind the same closed doors.

Whether you're the guys arrogantly showing up at these meetings annoucing "This is the way it's going to be"'....or a Michigan orv user who could give a damn less where this mileage goes or even how is it funded...it's flat out amazing how few out there exhibit any interest whatsoever in the major events which shape our future riding experience.

If the cyclists proved one thing on this thread....it's that there isn't an atver in this state who is half as passionate as they are.....on a <u>lazy</u> day. (and that's not even counting the doofuses purely in this to puff out their chests and/or use this hobby as a non-profit tax write off).

Gotta give 'em credit when it's due!

 

BB, don't forget someone proposed a increase in the ORV license to something like $25, would that cover the new 25% more single track trails?

"What is really going on in Michigan" -- proposed 25% new single track 24" cycle trail for the "me-only trail" guys. (that is over 700 miles of new 24 inch trail that will "Parallel the heavily used trail systems" )

I think I stated my 2 cents on the 25% new ORV trail on ground by 2008. But I'll repeat, I disagree with what these "me-only trail" guys/clubs want.

What is this?
See just like I thought, the "me-only trail" guys are trying to get their own new single track trails, this must be why they are trying to get the laws changed to make it unlawful for quads to travel down their 24 inch single track trails.

Motorsports [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif[/img]

 

BB QUOTE*
it's flat out amazing how few out there exhibit any interest whatsoever in the major events which shape our future riding experience.
END OF QUOTE*

Whats REALLY amazing is the fact that YOU even think for a SECOND that anyone really gives a rats *** about what YOU post in here.With that said,believe me, there are TONS of ORV users getting involved in these so called ''major events'' that you speak of. We just dont discuss them with YOU because we are not interested in moving our sport backwards.

Except for the PC your *** is glued to, when was the last time ANYONE seen your butt at one of these major events that you speak of which shape the future of our riding experience?Your quick to point out what everbody else does not do that meets your agenda,but you do nothing but sit behind a PC all day and take everybody else's inventory.

 

[quote]
Originally posted by: Motorsports
BB, don't forget someone proposed a increase in the ORV license to something like $25, would that cover the new 25% more single track trails?

Maybe you can actually educate me here; as we seem to be the only two 'left' discussing this historic meeting in the absence of those who actually spoke for us that night now refusing to do so.(while leaving Muddy up here to effectively attack all those who question that position)..

Did you read a flat 25% increase in "me-only" trails into this proposal?
And if so, why in the heck should we spend our resources seeking to parallel multi-use trails "first"...instead of busting out 50" (I say 60") <u>next to</u> the vast mileage of "me-only" single track we already have this huge "these are our trails damnit" problem with?
Nobody in this community seeks to deny what the average cyclist <u>should</u> desire (a parallel multi-use system where no new trails are built to the exclusion of the majority out there using them)....yet, when do you stop these guys from lopping off huge chunks of land that the overall vast majority will <u>never</u> experience or enjoy?

As far as the funding issue goes; we all knew that they would throw their earlier proposal out the window just as soon as the mileage they were shoving through behind our backs AT THE SAME TIME became a reality. What they eveidently were not intelligent enough to do (and this usually happens when pure greed is involved) is not 'show their hand' as to the ridiculous percentage increase involved concerning the shoving of more money into trainer's pockets for those parents who can damn well afford to pay their own way (attempting to change the formula from $1 out of every $16.25 to $3 out of every $25 for subsidized training <u>at</u> <u>the</u> <u>expense</u> of other programs within the formula).
Again, Busy Rider has collared two board members who never say a darn word at these meetings (can anybody find me an instance where any of these old or new members have done anything more than second motions since they arrived to represent us?) to re-write this formula behind the same closed doors and isolated from the same difficult questions.
My question is this...how in the heck do you come up with a funding formula for over 3,750 miles of trails....when the DNR is supposedly "undecided" on whether or not the privitized maintenance of same (an act that would not only finally get the job done/force greater accountibility into same; but yank the power right out from under these guys) is in "limbo" with the delayed release of this orv update draft plan?
For pete's sake, Motorsports...these are the same orv board members who flat out refused to take any kind of position or give any kind of public commentary at their own historic meeting....choosing instead to "rubber-stamp" proposals originating from individuals who not only refuse to identify themselves...but who showed up at said meeting for the first time that night bragging about how "informal" and certainly unreachable they actually were after two years lurking in the shadows/refusing all questions!!!

"....I think I stated my 2 cents on the 25% new ORV trail on ground by 2008. But I'll repeat, I disagree with what these "me-only trail" guys/clubs want.What is this?..."

You tell me, my friend...I read the same DNR version you did of these "we'll tell you what's going to happen, by god...and you'll shut up and like it!" meetings and have found no one in this state who feels the public deserves any more information than what is served up in condensed form every 4 months by the very agency we are attempting to influence. No displayed public contact info; no expectation of board members to answer direct/recorded questions; no distinction between the board and these super-secret representative groups that evidently speak for every one of them....exactly what pray tell do you expect?
Believe me, this arrogant attitude has been going on long enough for even long-timer DNR employees to christen these proceedings as nothing but a "goat rodeo". [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-sad.gif[/img] (which is actually what prompted me seven years ago to see for myself after visiting a DNR field office for the first time).

"...See just like I thought, the "me-only trail" guys are trying to get their own new single track trails, this must be why they are trying to get the laws changed to make it unlawful for quads to travel down their 24 inch single track trails..."

You don't care about the law if you've got the DNR on your side (see the barriers atHolton/Horshoe) or even atv club leaders publishing maps that simply eliminate your atv trail designation in comparison with the DNR's official map! (the same department who took off your atv <u>symbol</u> on that same map not two years earlier).

Bottom line:
If a lawmaker allows a cyclist to sit in his office and talk out of one side of his mouth concerning "the good of the orv community:...while the other side begs and pleads for more "me-only" single track that doesn't "damage the environment like those damn land-raping atvers"...what in the heck good are either one of them?

 

BB, Like I posted I do not recall who proposed the $25 ORV license increase or when it was, but if I were to guess it was someone on the advisory board.


As far as the 25% more trail on ground by 2008, that is what BR told us would happen, but now we find out that is not what will really happen. Whatever does happen will most likely not be what most ORV users of the system want. But why listen to the users of the ORV trail system, when that is exactly what needs to happen, since they use the ORV trails, they would know what if anything needs to change.

BUT oh no these "me-only trail" guys know best, what the elite top secret few wants is more important.

As far as the locking up the public lands and thowing away the keys, this is nothing new, it has been happening for years, and is exactly what some want to happen. I think its a shame to lock up public lands, when they should be open for the public to enjoy. But again a small elite few know better than we do.
Same goes for this 25% new 24 inch trail that will "Parallel the heavily used trail systems", the super secret minority knows what is best. But for who, who benefits most from the 24 inch trail?




As far as the safety training funding issue goes I posted my 2cents on that back a few pages, but will repeat here;
Since a ORV costs thousands of dollars, why should the safety training be subsidized from the ORV license fund? I think these that can afford to buy a ORV and tow vehicles and trailers to haul them can afford the small cost of safety training. And I recommend that everyone needs to have a safety certificate to use the ORV trails.

BB, do you mean some of the same posters here who refuse to 'identify themselves' or are you reffering to the advisory board or someone else? How are the majority of the ORV users of the trail system ever going to have a say, when these who refuse to identify themselves, are the minority elite/super secret group that is making the decisions 'behind closed doors'?

BB, Expect what? IMO more of the same from the "me-only trail" crowd...



Motorsports [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif[/img]

 

[quote]
Originally posted by: Motorsports
[quote]

"...BB, Like I posted I do not recall who proposed the $25 ORV license increase or when it was, but if I were to guess it was someone on the advisory board...."

This was 'announced' as to what we all wanted here http://www.michigan.gov/documents/No...s_149970_7.pdf under Orv Safety Ed Workgroup Update

That meeting also gave the public their first inkling as to how the millions unspent in the fund would be siphoned off/spent down through their back-door legislation (see House bill 4831) while the last meeting declared that the same man in charge of what you questrioned above....would put the 'finishing touches' on literally tens of millions more to be spent in the future!(you know, the same guy whose board term was supposed to end last year....yet who received a term extension sans any kind of formal/informal announcement or explanation to the public he serves. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-sad.gif[/img]

"....As far as the locking up the public lands and thowing away the keys, this is nothing new, it has been happening for years, and is exactly what some want to happen. I think its a shame to lock up public lands, when they should be open for the public to enjoy. But again a small elite few know better than we do...."

The fact is, no other area in this nation has ever witnessed this kind of massive land grab and no other atv community in the history of motorized recreation has been more complicit in supporting/allowing something like this to happen.All of this was done on their watch. These club members have blindly followed these "let's make a buck and/or form a non-profit and write everything off" leaders to the point where not a one of them outside of these leader's tight little circle....knows a darn thing as to how the access-related pendulum is swinging...or cares.

Read the public appearance portion of this last historic meeting http://www.michigan.gov/documents/Ma...s_160784_7.pdf where countless extremely important issues were brought forward that will certainly change the course of Michigan motorized recreation forever.
Do you get the feeling that any atver present that night posessed the intelligence or forethought to comment in the slightest on what had just been jaw-droppingly announced in front of them....or do you get the feeling that everybody having something to say that night chose to speak regarding businessat least 3 months old (or more) by the time these minutes were published?.
I mean, we realize that you guys show up to these things with comments in hand....but can even one of you question the "gods" assembled there something pertinent to the history in the making unfolding before you?
Again, I'm aware of the fact that these 'leaders' are under absolutely no obligation to answer your questions (and never have taken the moral course when at least "I" appeared or was shouted down before my time was up)...but can even one of these people at least act like these meetings aren't just a vehicle for these people's one-way annoucements?

"....Same goes for this 25% new 24 inch trail that will "Parallel the heavily used trail systems", the super secret minority knows what is best. But for who, who benefits most from the 24 inch trail?...."

Again, we have no idea what the actual percentage is here...or even where these people are talking about in regards to this massive mileage. These people allow the DNR to pen these half-**** representations of what goes on at these meetings and you've already witnessed (on this thread) how many of the main players in this saga respond to requests for first-hand accounts of what is announced there.
Why should these people care if we waste resources busting out 24" next to the old trails at this point in time ....if they can simply <u>add</u> to their overall "me-only" total,,,while effectively keeping all talk of finally busting their trails out for multi-use (and someday maybe parallel) as nothing but pure "blasphemy"?
.
"...As far as the safety training funding issue goes I posted my 2cents on that back a few pages, but will repeat here;Since a ORV costs thousands of dollars, why should the safety training be subsidized from the ORV license fund? I think these that can afford to buy a ORV and tow vehicles and trailers to haul them can afford the small cost of safety training. And I recommend that everyone needs to have a safety certificate to use the ORV trails...."

No argument here; yet why can't those who SAY they have a problem paying....just simply approach these instructors with hat in hand and go by the 'honor' system with the state saving HUGE on subsidies? Do the Democrat riders in suburban Detroit have the concept of 'entitlement' so ingrained into their culture that our subsidies would still total over 600 grand a year or better with many folks finally boning up and coming off their beer money?

"....BB, do you mean some of the same posters here who refuse to 'identify themselves' or are you reffering to the advisory board or someone else?..."

My signature explains this better than I ever could; as I wouldn't believe it myself if I hadn't went through it for seven years.(would you want to do business or even 'hang' with either of these two?)

 

I also thought it was interesting how Michigan atvers presented their #1 proposal and our #1 issue needing to be adressed on the trail system at that meeting:

"Parallel the heavily used sytems with 24" trail..."

Aren't ALL the systems pretty much heavily used or will be in the future?

And what pray tell does the "heavy use" of said system have to do with priotitizing any arrogant group's selfish demands for "me-only" mileage within <u>those</u> <u>same</u> <u>trails</u>.....ahead of simply busting out <u>current</u> "me-only" trails that would relieve much of this MAJORITY pressure in the first place?

The irony here isn't in the fact that these cyclists will obviously never be satisfied with riding <u>everything</u> out there; their <u>own</u> "me-only" trails **and** now yet even <u>more</u> parallel trails busted out at the expense of new multi-use mileage that could have been be created <u>in</u> <u>addition</u> <u>to</u> these mystery connectors....it's that the Michigan atv community has had their noses shoved so far up where they shouldn't have been on this issue...that gasping "what a great idea guys" is evidently about all they could muster with their heads <u>obviously</u> in the wrong place. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-sad.gif[/img]

Sometimes how you word the summation of any proceeding reveals a lot about how you view the issues discussed there in the first place.(and whose view you support over others presented there or even not).

 

Maybe its just me but Im reading something differant in the advisory board meeting minutes.

And then another one stating..

That sure dosn't sound like 25% new 24" single track to me. That sounds like them trying to make a plan that adresses everyones trail needs with some 24" trail and some 50 & 72" trail.

 

You know what. As far as I am concerned the Dnr can take there trail mainenantce and contract it out to whoever they want. I, as a CCC member, am tired of doing it. It is a hard job, a thankless job, a job that I (and others) do for free. And what do we get in the end??? Bitched at.

The DNR can have it. I wish them luck. I hope they can find some contractor that can maintain this system for the same price that we the volunteer do it for (that would be free if you wern't paying attention) because if they cant you can be darn sure your $16 orv sticker price is going to go up to cover it.

 

blackballed, And when questioned on the term extension, all one gets is no answers.

Exactly why I will not join any of those "non-profit" clubs.

IMO, these meetings are for "one-way annoucements".

The "me-only trail" guys have been working on a way to get new 24 inch trails for them only to use.
Why should more 24 inch trail be made when only a minority of the users can use the 24 inch orv trail?

With a "multi-use" trail more users get to use more of the limited miles of orv trail.

Cut off "beer money"?

I still say if they can afford the ORV, the tow vehicle and trailer, they can afford the small cost a the safety training class.

blackballed, yes you are correct, and IMO is how it will end up. A better question is which trail is not heavily used?

Yup got this new poster yz taking things I posted out of context to say something I did not post. Just like I been posting all along these are the tatics they use. This guy is making something up that I did not post. Just like his pals do in here.

YZ complains about the trail maintaining he does for the ccc non-profit club. What use is 24 inch trails to anyone but the minority "me-only trail" guys? Is YZ one of those guys? [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif[/img]

"The super secret minority knows what is best. But who benefits most from the Parallel 24 inch trail?"

What about making all trails 'multi-use' atleast 50 inch so more users can use most of the limited miles of ORV trails in Michigan? [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/img]



Motorsports [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif[/img]