Im taking what you say out of context?????? I dont think so. I took it to read exactly as I posted it. You and blackballed both said that the supersecret group is trying to ramrod 25% more single track. Where that came from I dont know because what i posted is what was in the meeting minutes.

And by the way I wasn't necessarly complaining about the trailwork I do. I like putting something back into the system. But I was also agreeing with BB. The DNR can have it as far as I am concerned. Its a thankless job. We never have enough people to get it done efficently. Which always seems to leave just a few of us to do the majority of the work. And like I said for what? To hear people bitch about it. The DNR can have it. The only expenses I see paid for for me is I get some of my gas $ paid back to me. Gas that I spend getting to these places. And usualy that $ dosn't cover my expenses. Usualy when we are out in the woods working it is costing me $ out of my pocket. If the DNR contracts this out to Private contractors I guarentee that these contractors wont be spending 1 cent out of there pocket and demand to be paid for there time. Where is all that $ gonna come from. I can assure you that the little bit of gas $ I/we get compinsated is just a small % of what a private contractor is gonna charge. So heck yea Ill pay an extra $5 for my orv sticker so I dont have to go out there and work. Let someone else do it. Id rather spend time riding with my son or working on projects around the house instead of draging trees out of the trail. But I guess as long as my local chapter wants to do the mainenantce Ill pitch in to help.

Oh by the way I like how you jumped right from me talking about trail mainenantce to the 24 vs 50" battle and completely ignored what I was actually talking about. Mainenantce is mainenantce. Has nothing to do with trail width. The trails I happen to work on are 50" and 72" trail by the way. None of the ME only trail as you call it. So think about that the next time you are out on the trails that I helped keep open for you for FREE!!!!!!


Me only me only me only......over and over and over.....Its all I ever hear. Look around the "me only" is everywhere. The state park has hiking trails. THE GALL of those hikers to go somewhere that i cant go on my orv. And how about those mountainbikers with there pristene bike paths??Its not fair. I should be able to go in there on my orv. And dont even get me started on those nice flat paved rail to trail paths that we cant ride on. How fair is that?

 

Yipee, here we go again, same thing just different page.

I did not post the things you claim. You took part of things I posted and twisted it to sound like something you wanted it to, just like your pals in here.

I'm sorry yz, but your post sure sounds like someone complaining.

Before you start the name calling I will request one thing of you yzman400, please stop twisting what I post, saying I posted things I never did, and the attacks. Please just stop it. Thank you.

Some advice, maybe you should go out for a nice long ride. I was out riding all day today and had a blast.

What use is 24 inch trails to anyone but the minority "me-only trail" guys?

"The super secret minority knows what is best. But who benefits most from this proposed new 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?

How do you think the forest cert. will affect ORV trails?

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

 

[quote]
Originally posted by: YZman400
Great example of your typical 2-wheeled apoligist:

Take the issue being discussed (the fact that our DNR authored meeting minutes which contain absolutely nothing as to the details concerning what the public "supposedly" desires as to the disposition of massive amounts of trail mileage up for grabs) and spin it as if we've already been advised of the overall percentages; where these trails will go and how 'happy' everybody should actually be.

Sorry, YZMan [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-sad.gif[/img]....your signature may indicate where your loyalties lie (certainly not in the multi-use/equal access arena)...yet defending vague statements on historic matters requires the same mindset as those who recently left this thread after they refused to explain what transpired at that same gathering.

Nice try and enjoy your signature (hey, if I couldn't mine an ounce of shame out of 'em; give it a shot)....yet your above statement actually puts you in the same category as those continually accepting these 3 to 8 month incomplete reports as "all the public needs to know". (kind of like trading the public's need to be informed regarding political orv matters for a closed forum and a required year-long membership fee).

 

#1) Your organization does NOT do it for free nor should they in this type of current volunteer grant system.

#2) You can talk all you want about 'giving up' these hundreds of thousands of dollars to the DNR ahead of your club most likely requesting yet even more mileage/money/undo power with this additional mystery mileage ramrodded through ....yet frankly we all aren't stupid enough to believe it. (don't you just love how these guys are perpetually in 'spin mode' 24/7 ?!)

and #3)...sticker prices going "up" is the #1 fear of 2-wheeled users who feel that actually PAYING for the exclusive right to ride the entire system like no other (in addition to enjoying exclusive trails all to themselves)...is akin to (again) PAYING for trails these "land-raping" atvers ruin.... causing cyclists to deserve yet even more parallel mileage next to the "heavily used" trail systems! (v.s. our money being used to simply widen "me-only" single track FIRST to better serve/take the pressure off the majority of this trail system and its riders).
Sorry, but your evident fear regarding the inevitable increased sticker fees is more of a reflection concerning your group's long-expressed "non-public" wish to divorce yourselvers from the multi-use sticker sytem....and actually says more about who you people actually are than this long thread could ever possibly illustrate.

Nothing upsets an off-road cyclist more than getting into his wallet...while at the same time demanding that he actually act like he's part of the community...rather than head and shoulders above us all with selfish demands for public real estate all to his lonesome. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-sad.gif[/img]

 

YZMan400 posted:
"...Me only me only me only......over and over and over.....Its all I ever hear. Look around the "me only" is everywhere. The state park has hiking trails. THE GALL of those hikers to go somewhere that i cant go on my orv. And how about those mountainbikers with there pristene bike paths??Its not fair...."

How ironic is it...that these motorcyclists choose a comparison issue which magnifies the ridiculousness of one group's claimed "ownership" of public lands over the other...when simple 21st century <u>maintenance</u> (again, here comes the hated phrase "pay-to-play" and these hikers refusal to do so in this instance) is the only issue 'supposedly' separating them. (which we know not to be true; as the hiker, like the motorcyclist, flat out DEMANDS that these huge areas be accessed by "HIM AND HIM <u>ONLY</u>"....

Motorized or non-motorized....we need to identify these groups which are tearing our outdoor communities apart....before ever hoping to work together in the first place.(and believe me, sneaking around behind everybody's back while witholding simple public consensual information as you've witnessed here...does absolutely nothing to promote this and never will).

 

I like how you edited out the part were I said that I would GLADLY PAY MORE MONEY because it didn't fit in with your general opinion of the typical orv rider.



oh and

I must be getting under your skin a little but as you finialy deemed me worthy of replying to... lol

Oh and what vague statement on historic matters am I defending??? The coments that were made in the meeting last month. Oh yea that is ancient history isn't it... And if my eyes serve me right you were just comenting on the EXACT same thing....So you can just kiss my azz there buddy.


This thread is such a soap opera. I get such a kick out of checking up on this from time to time to soo what the lattest he said / she said is all about....lol

 

[quote]
Originally posted by: YZman400
[quote]
I like how you edited out the part were I said that I would GLADLY PAY MORE MONEY because it didn't fit in with your general opinion of the typical orv rider...yea Ill pay an extra $5 for my orv sticker..."

Anybody who is still stuck in fantasy land hoping to pay a mere $5 extra....deserves the exact treatment concerning unwillingness to pay that you received.
Your hero that started this thread has already proposed nearly doubling that figure before he and this super-secret MMRC railroaded this mileage through...so you now somehow expect to pay less than what you previously toasted the Kool-Aid to previously....with now 750 more miles to take care of?
C'mon, YZ...you've been hanging around to many cyclists moaning about how they should be funded separately!

"...Let someone else do it. Id rather spend time riding with my son or working on projects around the house instead of draging trees out of the trail. But I guess as long as my local chapter wants to do the mainenantce Ill pitch in to help...."

Again, this is an impossible situation to just sit there like a bump on a log regarding. Literally thousands of miles of trails aren't being properly laid down or cared for and you know it...especially when considering the fact that rogue elements create more restoration work every day that sure as heck can't be realistically handled in a volunteer manner going into the 21st century.
I'd rather fight with an environmentalist over access related issues....than have him burn me with your indifference as to whether volunteers should be handling this or not with 750 more miles now coming under this community's responsibility.

"....Oh and what vague statement on historic matters am I defending??? The coments that were made in the meeting last month. Oh yea that is ancient history isn't it... And if my eyes serve me right you were just comenting on the EXACT same thing....So you can just kiss my azz there buddy....."

What you are defending is the right for our DNR to give vague statements (pen meeting minutes) regarding a group the public had here-to-before never even <U>heard</U> <U>from</U> before that night....yet who swaggerred in swaying our entire board (unanimously) to rubber stamp what the public 'supposedly'desires...yet knows absolutely <u>nothing</u> about.
To make matters worse....you defend those on this forum proudly announcing that it is none our damn business what 'our' representative group proposed that night...and for us 'peon' orv enthusiasts merely questioning who these people actually even ARE or pray tell what they represent as our supposed ambassadors...to go jump in the lake!

What part of "guilty by association" don't you understand here and what are you going to call for next?...to bring back the lady who actually recorded these meetings in the past?...a service that both the DNR and certainly your arrogant friends have been celebrating is now long gone?

 

Im kinda dissapointed that "red headed step child" isnt being used any more.

 

I'd be interested in knowing what percectage of the trails each person plans on riding?

I'm pretty sure we're all paying taxes for all the roads, highways and bridges in our states, but do we use them all?