Well, yetti; you may not be able to get your "Ask The President" question posted right away on the website(you understand these things must be 'reviewed' first and all) but you certainly got one of the first significant 'official' answers I've ever seen given, on your other question of working to open up the L.P. again (I'll have to agree with him on this one; although if operator disobedience is rampant; the 'hard' decisions on supporting fully identifiable enforcement for 'all' orv users, is far from even being mentioned).

Question: Did you get any sense (from the answer to Bill's question) that this club had formed ANY opinion on this pending bill which has been brewing for literally 'months'?

Or are the people who are currently meeting with others in detailed discussions of this matter................making sure that others involved in the meeting 'know' that they simply don't have a position on what is being talked about 'right now' and will have to wait until the next club meeting gives them some member input?

C'mon!

Somebody asks a question regarding a pending bill and the answer is (paraphrasing)'well, we don't know 'what' we have been saying to others involved in this matter; so you'll just have to come to our next (RSVP 'only') meeting and find out what 'might' be our position on it'!

Am I 'missing' something here; or don't you 'first' take a position on what a bill may say in it's most recent transformation............and 'then' develop a strategy; which you express at any meeting discussing it?

I hope bills like this don't have any important meetings or get 'voted on' before the next (supposedly)'3 month' club meetings convene for any 'official' legislative positions to be revealed!

I'm sorry; but it is as simple as standing up for what you believe and making darn sure everybody out there knows EXACTLY where you stand; which brings respect and support. Maybe this idea is 'lost' in big city Detroit politics....................but it sure has endeared many a politician on 'this' side of the state, to their constituency.

Look forward to seeing your question 'cleared' and posted.

 

By the way, Bill; I was curious as to 'who' you were referring to; in the following statement:

........"Some will say that Grant Sponsers dont want to give up the trail $$??Perhaps those are the guys that have never done trail maintenance and do not realize the money that you DONT make?"...............

Gosh, Bill; wasn't it one particular grant sponsor 'HIMSELF' that didn't want the state competing for 'his' grant money; even if the state felt that they could do a better job themselves?(ie. by hiring full-time workers that the grant sponsor COULDN'T?). If I remember right; anybody I've EVER heard comment on this issue has simply asked why the clubs aren't working 'with' the state and not bickering over who gets 'what' money?

As to those who have 'never done trail maintenance' and don't 'realize' things:

Could those be some of the same people who have:

Been verifiably THREATENED by club personnel for suggesting that we might somehow maybe work 'with' motorcycle groups on trail maintenance? And isn't it funny that this same 'officer' claimed in writing; before he went 'ballistic'; that he had the FULL support of the president in discounting this suggestion?..........Maybe these volunteer's experience in attempting to do trail maintenance (and their inability to do so without being threatened by the trail coordinator himself) should be brought up at the next orv board meeting? Wouldn't the state like to ask why members are being put down for even suggesting this cooperation and then why the same club's website seems to 'suddenly'(cough) 'promote' it? Or was it simply the fact that nobody else was supposed to learn about this blatant refusal to cooperate; which brought on such 'venom' towards a voulunteer asking questions?

I say just 'name' who these people actually are! Those who are forced to do their volunteer work 'elsewhere' from countless other incidents that we could discuss 'right now'!..............................you're an ASI safety instructor; would you like to discuss what 'I' have learned about the state of atv training here in Michigan? Extra fees for parents to 'sit in' on their kid's classes? Training quads promised and never delivered(without so much as an apology?) Should I go on?....................................

I didn't think so. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img]

 

John,
you raise some interesting questions.Im wondering with all the questions/comments you pose in various forums througout the yrs,WHY I never see you where these questions have a chance to be answered and addressed by more than just the President of MATVA?There is an ORV BOARD meeting this coming Wednesday at 6:00pm.I feel you ask some VERY legimate questions,unfortunatly,im not qualified to answer some.MAY I suggest you join in on this meeting and start pumping out some questions where it counts?Complaining on an open Forum has got you NOTHING,perhaps its time to head in another direction?

I assume you are refering to Rich R when you talk about the Grant Sponser that did'nt want the State competing for his Grant $$ even if they could do a better job?Im sorry,but if that is so,I do not recall this topic being discussed and will have to go on what you tell me.If there is truth to this statement,I dont support the idea that these grant dollars are ''his''.If the State can do a more effective job on the trails,than they should have the right to intervene.MATVA has done an exceptional job on the trails that they have worked on and its hard work,BUT,they are only ONE sponser,and if the State has a better idea,im ready to hear it and listen with BOTH ears opened,he should be too?I plan on discussing this topic with RR at next Sundays meeting.Better yet,why dont YOU go to this Wednesdays Board meeting and pose it again?

Have a great day and I hope to see you where these comments can further be addressed?

Bill

 

John,
this Wed ORV Board meeting has been canceled.

How about making the MATVA meeting,its open to the public?

Bill

 

hi guys, I saw the post about the options of opening the the state for rural riding, the prez. said that "nobody wants that"! I want to meet "Nobody", its stuff like this that gets me cranked. I would like to see how much busness the atv stores would get if there was open riding. right now I'll bet 50% of their busness is based on ignorence of the law. I was talking to a friend at Nicholson's in AnnArbor, he was telling me some of the storys about where people thought they could ride legally, Woodward ave was one, he said that everyone he knows rides the road, some know the law , some don't. the buying public is left to think that they already have the rights, and have no clue that they don't, until their handed their first ticket. I think this crap has to stop. if the people of this state are ever going too get there riding privlages back, they first have to learn they don't have any.

 

From the Jan. 6th, 2002 Michigan state orv board meeting minutes:

2002-03 ORV Grants/Staff Recommendations:
............Discussion ensued about the grant process, the role of the ORV board, grant selection criteria, and public involvement in the grant review process.
Mr. Martell and Mr. Cannon feel it is not the role of the ORV board to approve or disapprove staff recommendations or question every grant. They felt that the board needs to be trusting in the DNR’s ability to manage the program. Mr. Martell added that in his view the DNR is doing a good job managing the ORV program and said that is evident through the DNR’s commitment to staff and operate the program.
Mr. Burlingham feels the ORV board should have policy making and grant approval authority. Mr. Kubisiak> referred the board to their charge outlined in the NRC memo in their packet.


(From Blackballed): So the ORV board wants more power in making decisions and Steve basically tells them to go back and read 'again' what job it is 'exactly'; that they are there to do.

I guess 'my' first question would be:

Why is it that Mr. Martell and Mr. Cannon are implying that members of our ORV advisory board are somehow insisting that they must 'approve or disaprove' of THEIR staff recomendations and are questioning a big share of the grants being handed out?

Is this the truth?

And if it is, which of our leaders are 'strongarming' the DNR; which is what one of our club leaders has already publicly admitted was their practice in the past?(sorry, but I don't 'forget'; when one club leader claims there's a significant problem with another and then refuses to talk about it).

And what about Mr. Burlingham, below?


O2-012 USDA Forest Service – Mr. Burlingham questioned why the DNR recommended funding the Forest Service request to maintain designated ORV trails on the Baldwin-White Cloud Ranger District. He feels this is contrary to policy and reduces the number of volunteer groups in the program. He is concerned that this sends the wrong message to volunteers. He is concerned that more funding is going to land administering agencies instead of volunteer organizations.
Mr. Kubisiak said that as the land managing agency the Forest Service has priority for grant consideration. He added the request addresses a real need and demonstrates their commitment to the ORV trails program.
Mr. Hudson added that the maintenance request is an effort to add value to the maintenance program, enhance forest service presence on the trails, and improve the overall service to trail enthusiasts. He added that the Forest Service values volunteers and encourages their support. All interested volunteers are encouraged to contact the Forest Service.


(From Blackballed):
Well, thank you very much, Mr. Kubisiak and Mr. Hudson!
Sends the wrong message to volunteers? Would that 'wrong' message be that you NOW don't have to necessarily work beside club members that rudely disparage your character for expressing your ideas and asking questions?
And please tell me how many members of each club will be refusing to do the trail maintenance that they did previously; because the 'state' is in charge of 'their' trail?

Here's a follow-up from 'another' club leader:


(From the state orv board minutes)...."Mr. Rondeau feels that it is unfair that equipment grants are made to public agencies and not volunteer clubs. He believes this gives the agencies unfair advantage over volunteer groups and that it is not an equitable playing field. Ms. Koch suggested the board consider criteria that give priority to requests that provide more public benefit at less cost."


(From Blackballed):
And a big 'thank-you' to Ms. Koch!
Maybe the state would be a lot more receptive to handing out equipment grants................ if the 'clubs' maybe started showing some kind of willingness to quit complaining about the money/equipment they receive and start working closer with the state 'itself'....................OR LET ALONE; EACH OTHER!!! What a concept!



Bill,

In answer to your question about attending MATVA meetings; I have seen NO EVIDENCE (as you suggested) that my opinions mean a 'thing' to any one person connected with that organization. When I 'have' attended the meetings; there has been so much sunshine blown my way; that was never followed up on, or apoligized for, that I have liitle faith, my presence would be anything more than a distraction. All other correspondence between myself and this club has been 'less' than productive and I will 'not' attend a meeting where we are not even allowed to discuss, beforehand, the issues that are to be brought before us.

Let me give you a quick example:

March 12, 2003 ORV Board Meeting Canceled
Dear MATVA Members and Guests:

The March 12, 2003 ORV Advisory Board meeting has been canceled. Please pass the word along to all you know, that may have been going.

****Please do not reply to this post. It is for information only***** and will be deleted on March 13, 2003.

(From Blackballed):
(LOL!) Now Bill, tell me something...............why in the heck does it matter if someone 'replies' to this post or not?
Gee, would it be too 'political' if someone simply asked what was 'supposed' to be discussed at that cancelled meeting; as there was absolutely no preview of any position 'the club' was going to take 'anyways'?
And might any answer given just 'possibly' better prepare someone that was planning on attending the 'club' meeting, the very next week?
"Don't reply" as this is "information ONLY" and will be 'deleted' within the week................I love it!

If a club refuses to let us all openly discuss the political sissues that confront us...................then I suppose we all have no choice but to take these issues and present them to the state 'directly'. I'm sorry, but 'we' did not set up this "well, the club doesn't own the site" and "well, I have nothing to do with the club" scenario.

Unfortunately, this set-up and many other issues such as what is described above; have alienated more than a 'few' riders from ever attending your meetings again.

And for all of us who truly do 'care'; that is one heck of a shame[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-sad.gif[/img]

 

I couldn't agree with you more in regards to educating folks on just how much in disrepair our system actually is. Do you see atv clubs hollering about this? Or do you see them talking about (and at first, even PRIORITIZING through their mission statements) building 'new' riding areas and buying new 'groomers' to smooth out the trails closest to their homes?

Hey, if you think opening up these roads is a good idea; don't take 'nobody wants' for an answer!

And if you want to adress our representative's concern about 'enforcement'............ask him if easily IDENTIFYING these trespassers is a 'priority' of his? While you're at it; ask him why we aren't pushing for much LARGER license numbers to be dispalyed, than have been previously suggested............maybe along the lines of the former SNOWMOBILE numbers that were discontinued years ago after 'club' pressure. Or maybe some of the 'city slicker' riders from suburban Detroit; would rather 'look cool', rather than identify who's keeping these roads closed and trespassing without fear of identification?

Wouldn't it be TERRIBLE if our representative had to suggest displaying these LARGE numbers on atvs and then FURTHER suggest that the 'snowmobilers' go back to doing the same? Oh boy and look out!

Why, that would be akin to 'upsetting' the motorcycle club leader for being 100% behind wider trails AND PUBLICLY DECLARING IT!(then again, now that the 'state' has suggested that this just might get done with or 'without' them; they were, of course, 'always on board' with it, anyways!..............."well, of course!; we were always concerned about these 'rural' trails, too!"..........."we thought we'd start on 'em right 'after' we built the SE MI. riding area and got ourselves a couple 'groomers'!).[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/img]

Thank God that the state of Michigan has finally decided to take control of and are attempting to FIX what we already have; as these clubs definitely needed an 'attitude adjustment' as to who was going to start standing up for 'what'.

 

now that someone woke the sleeping giant, I wonder if she'll turn the tide in favor of what "we the riders" want. I hope the e-mail I sent to Mr. Kubisiak, was well received, I asked him to come and read the forums to see what he's missing. if he can shed some light to the state about our veiws, then we can excellerate the process.

 

I do not know where Rich R is getting his info from in regards to the comment he made about most ATVers finding County and Forest roads ''boring''to ride?I asked alot of the 40 riders we had today in Leota about this and everyone I talked to was in favor of re-opening up the Lower Penn to ORVs.

I would first submit that we NEED to go to a large number plate for every ORV[thank you John].Second,every ORV MUST have liability insurance,and third,by the yr 2008,EVERY ORV operator,REGARDLESS of age,MUST posses a valid ORV training certificate.

The large numbered plate would easily identify offenders/users!
ORV insurance would assist in protecting from a varity of off road concerns!
Manditory Safety training would educate users on land issues/concerns and help most to become more safe and rsponsable users,thus cutting down on enviro concerns.

Well,it certainly SOUNDS good on paper,now if we could make it just happen?

Bill

 

Sounds like BULL$HIT to me.

#1. The only reason I buy a MI ORV is to ride at the Maumee State Forest in Ohio. If they turn out some big sticker/plate I'll quit buying them all together.

#2. I already spend enough on insurance for my cars let alone four ATVs.

#3. Sounds like you just want to make some $$$ with you being an 'instructor'.

SMC