Bill,

I can't agree with your last statement any more. But as far as worrying about the future cost of a 'sticker' when somebody has (evidently) just made the most SIGNIFICANT decision in the history of our trail system; since it first began?

Hasn't this unprecedented, groundbreaking action been the same thing I have been hollering about for over two years now (with ZERO support from the Michigan ATV Association)and might just possibly be a direct result of a million dollar lawsuit that just transpired(and everybody refused to talk about)?

You mention this project will take MANY years and MANY volunteers to complete and I agree..................so why is it that one of the atv clubs we have 'now' is worrying about the state itself competing for grant money the state feels can be used better (any 'clubs' hiring two full-time workers this year; for one system?) when talking out the 'other' side of their mouth about the importance of 'alliances'? Looks like it just now may be 'put up' or 'shut up' for Michigan's ORV clubs; which may finally FORCE them into direct partnerships with the state instead of 'strong arming them' as one of our VERY OWN CLUB LEADERS has admitted(and state officials have confirmed).

I hope your information is correct; as I think the man or woman who finally stood up and said we are going to BUILD this second generation system; is not getting near enough credit for finally telling these clubs that 'they' don't run this ORV system (through 3 or 4 guys w/little input from their club members) and 'the state' does.

Gee, I wonder why such a significant 'news flash' such as this; hasn't even made it into the 'discussion phase' of our largest state atv club's website? (Gulp!) Could this mean that a Detroit riding area is 'now' out of the question until we all go out and fix what we presently have? Say it aint so![img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img] And with all this 'work' needing to be done; wouldn't it look even 'worse' if somebody continued to press this issue forward and sap resources away from such a noble goal?

Hallelujah![img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/img] With sympathies extended to all those who have kept their 'mouths shut' these past two years (regarding other pressing atv issues in our state) hoping 'Santa' would somehow deliver them a 'back-door' riding area if they were 'good'.................

Let's get to work boys!; and press your local club leaders to QUICKLY put out something PUBLICLY as to what their position 'is' on this! I know that it's never happened before; but doesn't this sound like something that our leaders should be excited about telling us?! 'Member' or not; let's get the word out that we ALL support this! (or don't we.......................................)

 

Wanted to quick add something, that some of you may have forgotten, regarding what has been offered previously on the subject of 'widening trails'. What have some of our own leaders claimed were the insurmountable roadblocks to what the state just 'went out and did' with this 60" edict?

...."The 'best' way to gain THE STATE'S support for this endeavor; would be to have a 'dynamic' plan in place and perform a 'pilot project' and 'study' of a 'single' trail."
(and here's the kicker.......)"ADDITIONALLY it will ***REQUIRE*** the 'support' of ***ALL*** the 'other' grant sponsors TO MAKE IT HAPPEN....."

"This would be a massive undertaking and 'personally' if I did not AGREE with it; I most likely would NOT be encouraged to do the work; even though this would make the trails SAFER."

So........... who's going to 'drop out' and refuse to do the work? The leader who told me once that if it were up to 'him'...............no trails 'they' maintained would be any wider than your handlebars? Or will it be the same grant sponsor that had to supposedly have everyone 'be on board' for this to have any chance of happening?

Anybody that doesn't think that we all should be thanking THE STATE for moving this project forward, WITHOUT these club's blessing; has not listened to all the double talk that has somehow made 'other' club's priorities more important than our own; or even the majority of riders/citizens of this state.

Gee, we could all be 'studying the concept' of a 'pilot project' right now; or actually picking up our tools and hitting the woods as the state has evidently suggested is one heck of a lot more productive.
And if there are orv groups 'against' this who feel they should have some kind of separate experience from the rest of us?.....................................ask a 4WD or buggy enthusiast what 'they' think; turn in your 'non-profit status' and get the heck out of the way.

John

 

OK guys, I asked the Pres. and he said that our riding privelages in lower michigan were taken away a long time ago because of irresponsable riders, he did go on to say that there are places in lower michigan that do have open riding,Montmorecy county, and Presquet isle countys have mostly open riding,and limited access to roads around Bull Gap( I think he means in and out of McKinley). there are to many peices of the puzzle to try and cover at this point. I will have to go and speak to him in person.

 

The source of my information come from someone with ALOT of clout in the Cycle Conservation Club of Michigan.I checked with our trail cordinator yesterday to conform my info,and while he did say the 60 inch trails were ''heavily''discussed but were not yet ''confirmed''.

Opening up our LP Forest roads IS the answer and will save TONS of working hrs and $$.Im wonderin how many YRS this will take to achomplish?

Bill G.

 

I couldn't agree with you more that 'reacquiring' our right to ride the Lower Peninsula's back roads, at least where private property concern's aren't an issue, should always be a focal point of any orv club.

But what's more important?

Fixing up and expanding(by widening narrow cycle/'atv' trails) what we already HAVE in order to cut down on million dollar lawsuits; or claim that maintaining trails PROPERLY (see Little 'O', Cedar Creek, Tomahawk and how many others) is just plain too 'daunting' a task?

And when the state steps in and offers to hire trail maintenance workers; is it all the clubs can do, is holler like heck that they are 'unfairly' COMPETING for 'their' money? Why does this sound strangely familiar to the club's refusal to even LOOK at well documented offers of help in getting the prison system BACK into the trail maintenance business? Or would that have been a 'threat' to the club's grant money, also?

Nobody said it was going to be 'easy'; but these club's refusal to even previously TALK about what the state has 'now' proposed and to go as far as kicking people off their website for simply 'discussing' this same idea......................pretty much confirms why building a SE MI. riding area was so important for them in the first place.

......."Why...why....you mean we'd have to work 'with' the state of MI. as 'non-paid' volunteers on trails that are 'not' out our back door? But.....but....what about the fee-based 'Detroit' riding area we wanted to build and the nice 'groomed' trails we had planned for the trails closest to us?"...............................

These clubs talk all the time about how they'd like all of us to get out and support what they do.

But isn't it funny that when the biggest issue to come around since the trail system was built; when lawsuits are filed and when the state starts looking at 'partners' for the future...............................they all want to make sure that it is only the 'leaders' who are discussing what is of paramount importance to the rest of us.

Go on up to their websites and see for yourselves....................or will we always have to wait for someone to start hollering that even club meetings 'themselves' have to be regularly scheduled?[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-sad.gif[/img]

By the way, Bill; when you said that you contacted your trails coordinator and he claimed that this very important widening issue was 'heavily discussed' and not confirmed; by 'who', 'when' and where?..........................................is n't your trails coordinator 'now'; the same person who owns your club website and claims that no political issues will be allowed on the same forum that solicits questions for our state orv board representative (and club president)?

The biggest thing that has surprised me about those who would seek to represent us riders on PUBLIC issues................is their almost universal agreement that any such information is strictly for 'their' consumption and that every 4 months (or so) they'll let it be 'briefly' discussed!

You have nothing to do with this, Bill......................but it doesn't work that way. And for how much this widening project is going to 'cost' and how 'long' it will take? Maybe the only folks worried about more 'money' are the clubs (as I've always said......'one trail at a time') and the 'time' issue might just have something to do with those who saw no 'glory' in fixing what we already have and plenty in building something new that only they 'themselves' could point to.

I guess maybe we're all just going to have to go out and do this 'only' for our grandchildren's sake and kick ourselves in the butt for not starting sooner(hey, if we were done already; the Detroit 'play' area would be next on the list and we might just 'then' be able to 'consciously' name it after someone!).

Thanks for the insight and your opinion, Bill.

John

 

yetti,

I read the response also and certainly hope you have plenty of 'more' questions to ask at that meeting if the answer to your question about opening the L.P. turns into (understandably) something like "we've been working on it since '91; but we continue to push forward with 'high hopes' for the future.................................."

This club truly 'needs' someone like you who doesn't accept 'stock' answers and demands that all positions be publicly declared. I'd be happy to talk with you anytime if you would like some background on what has been attempted previously.

Believe me, you are one of only a 'few' who have ever bothered to question what is actually happening with our sport here in Michigan. One can only hope that you are not convinced that this is all 'too complicated for your understanding', as has been previously suggested to others[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img]

John

 

John,
yes,its the same guy.I had no idea that he would'nt allow political issues to be discussed on the Forum if the questions were allready relevant to board members or our president.Somehow this does not seem like the answer I'd expect to hear from our cordinator in regards to the above?He is a pretty straight up person[IMO] and does'nt hide from to much.

I did not get into the WHO,WHERE,or WHATS on the trail widening.I hope to see him this week end in Leota and wish to further discuss this with him?

John,
why not make next Wednsdays ORV board meeting in Lansing and pump out some good questions?Im going to be there.

Bill

 

WELL JOHN, its time to get of my but and start doing the meeting circut, and try to discuse our issues with the board and pres. if he's our rep to the big board in lansing, then he should listen, even a little is better than nothing. I don't know his politics, and don't care. I go forward with the premise that we will succeed, if not today, then maybe tommorow.[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-disgusted.gif[/img]

 

Bill,

The person to who we are referring to has made it very clear, in his last posting regarding my 'character'; that he wants NO politics whatsoever on 'his' (official/unofficial?) club site. He has also posted several times in the past, with reference to how highly restricted the rules will be on 'his' website. There is no disputing this; nor is it no secret that the club leadership itself, has stated several times, that they have 'no control' over their (official/unofficial?) site because they don't 'own' it!

Am I the only one in this state who would dare question why one party (obviously involved in trail politics) keeps all 'political' trail debate censored (kicking off club members for no given reason and blaming the 'other' party for doing it) and the other supposedly true 'politician'; claiming that 'his' club has nothing to do with the site or allowing any 'political' debate on it!

I'm sorry, but if we are to have un-elected representation of the atv riders in our state; we darn well should be able to talk about the issues which concern us. If our representative doesn't want to comment or take action on what we say................................then somebody sure as heck better be making sure these debates can take place in the first place(so he can at least 'view' them).

Then again, if a club's membership has nothing other than their own self-interests in mind....................why worry about what's happening elsewhere or what the 'rest' of the state has to say?

Or if, as Bill suggested, we go to the state orv board meeting and ask why our concerns are not being heard through infrequent club meetings and censored discussions; will not the 'stock' answer be, that "we have polled our membership and they 'like' it this way?"

For those of us that have been forcibly removed from further discussion for absolutely no given reason (other than 'he' did it).......................we'd just like to hear 'one' stance on an atv issue be PUBLICY declared; so that, at the very least, we can either get behind it or not.

John

 

By the way, Bill; here's where I got my information regarding what can and can't be talked about...........

......"This is a community center for Michigan Riders. Setup rides, help out a person with a problem, sell something (hopefully to buy another quad). That is why it is not part of the main website. I don’t want the politics dragged through here......"

#1) Now let me get this straight.....................The forums on the Michigan ATV Assoc. website are not a part of the main website that the Michigan ATV Assoc. 'uses' but has nothing to do with. Huh?

#2) How is it that someone who is having public political discussions 'on his own'; refuses to discuss them 'publicly' and for what reason?

What some people seem to be forgetting here; is that ALL these issues are for PUBLIC consumption. WE ARE STEWARDS OF A TRAIL SYSTEM. The rest of us are not going to sit back here and have our representatives claim things like "well, I have no idea what the motorcycle club's future view of the trail system is.........".

Then, By God, You ASK them what they believe in and get your butt back here and tell the rest of us what that is!

Or....."we" have been having discussions about widening almost 3,000 miles of trails to 60 inches................O.K.; so are ALL these parties involved; planning on even 'mentioning' this at the next state orv board meeting; which is the only place a 'non-club' member can even 'obtain' this information and THEN contact those involved with his 'invaluable' input?(we sure as heck aren't going to know this is happening off a club website, as the subject is 'banned'!).

I'm sorry, but there are about ten other subjects that aren't being discussed; because nobody has the kahunas to ask the state how we should start getting our information on a timely basis. And there are even fewer folks out there who are finally finding their information 'unfiltered' and then asking 'who' exactly stands 'where', regarding it.

It appears that there is far too much going on at the present time; for us all to sit back and 'guess' what those positions might be.And if nobody wants to 'talk' about these things, other than in 'private' e-mails?................................then it sounds like a few people need to be reminded what being a PUBLIC servant, is all about(especially when it comes to 'atv trails' for God's sake[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img])

By the way, thank you yetti for having the belief that you have the right to 'answers' ................and a special thanks to Bill who, for the first time, publicly revealed this information on here for us and will get nothing but 'grief', I'm sure, for doing so.