MICHIGAN ORV FUND
#11
03-01-2003, 05:31 PM
#12
03-02-2003, 12:35 AM
Elite Pro Rider
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MICHIGAN ORV FUND
I was mistaken. She wants to combine the DEQ and the DNR. Heres the article Granholm on Environment Either way it speels TROUBLE for us ATV'ers.
#13
03-02-2003, 11:19 AM
#14
03-02-2003, 05:26 PM
MICHIGAN ORV FUND
Granholms plan doesn't sound any worse than what we have now. it was Engler who devided the DNR & DEQ in the first place. and thats when we started losing access to state rec area(1991). and if they can resend some of the misfortunate things that Engler passed, just maybe we can get our access back.
#15
03-02-2003, 08:47 PM
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#16
03-03-2003, 08:44 AM
#17
03-19-2003, 10:09 AM
MICHIGAN ORV FUND
By the way, since the last state orv board meeting was cancelled..................................who has the latest on widening our orv trails here in Michigan? Any 'club' members working on this?
Couldn't this possibly be the biggest project since our trails were created and nobody in an 'official' state atv club wants (or is allowed) to talk about it?
C'mon guys! You have to ask your leaders to 'officially' stand up for something!(don't let somebody tell you what you "can" and "can't" respond to on the internet![img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/img]). Or do you just want to hear from them every '3 months' and still expect to get other riders/clubs involved ?! Or is it that we should just all 'send in our money'.........and that's all we should care about until the 'man behind the curtain' next appears?
Gosh, don't tell me that promising a suburban riding area out your back door could stifle 'this' many questions! (or would a club be against widening trails if their 'city' riding area had to be pushed back from being built or that 'other' clubs weren't on board with the state's plan?).
Strap a set on, boys!...........there are people out there who actually 'care' what you have to say about our sport here in MI. and won't ask YOU to bring up important subjects in state meetings so that THEY don't have to!(uhhhhhh, can you say 'license plates'.........................seems like somebody wanted 'me' to bring up a similiar subject about 'alliances' once; maybe it should be brought up 'now' in the trail widening debate?).
Speak your peace, boysand girls!; you can 'do it' on this site............unless you've been told, 'not to'.......................
Couldn't this possibly be the biggest project since our trails were created and nobody in an 'official' state atv club wants (or is allowed) to talk about it?
C'mon guys! You have to ask your leaders to 'officially' stand up for something!(don't let somebody tell you what you "can" and "can't" respond to on the internet![img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/img]). Or do you just want to hear from them every '3 months' and still expect to get other riders/clubs involved ?! Or is it that we should just all 'send in our money'.........and that's all we should care about until the 'man behind the curtain' next appears?
Gosh, don't tell me that promising a suburban riding area out your back door could stifle 'this' many questions! (or would a club be against widening trails if their 'city' riding area had to be pushed back from being built or that 'other' clubs weren't on board with the state's plan?).
Strap a set on, boys!...........there are people out there who actually 'care' what you have to say about our sport here in MI. and won't ask YOU to bring up important subjects in state meetings so that THEY don't have to!(uhhhhhh, can you say 'license plates'.........................seems like somebody wanted 'me' to bring up a similiar subject about 'alliances' once; maybe it should be brought up 'now' in the trail widening debate?).
Speak your peace, boysand girls!; you can 'do it' on this site............unless you've been told, 'not to'.......................
#18
03-20-2003, 11:56 PM
MICHIGAN ORV FUND
John,
Senator Garcia sponsered Senate bill SB0110.This Bill would change the definition of an ORV trail width to 57 inches minimum.The ARGO guys are gripping about paying the user fee of 16.25 for an ORV sticker and they cant ride anything legally but an ORV Route because their ARGOs are 57 inches wide and exceed the 50 inch max for an ORV trail.This Bill was introduced to the Senate Committee on Transportation on 1-29-03.Senator LeLand also introduced this Bill.
This Bill,if enacted,would move to widen all existing ORV trails to at least 57 inches.The problem here is with Public Act 300[the act by which your family transportation vehicle is licensed and regulated]-----There are vehicles TODAY that are not any wider than the proposed 57 inch width and the effect[by design]would be to allow them to access the ''newly''widened trails that were never intended for general transportation.This is not to mention the cost of widening/labor over 2000 miles plus of exsisting trails.I do not support this!!!
It would be FAR less expensive and ALOT less labor to re-open the L.P Forest roads and to keep the exsisting trails how they are now.We could use the same standards as the U.P?----Open unless posted closed and check local ordinances before riding.
Whats your thought?
Bill G.
Senator Garcia sponsered Senate bill SB0110.This Bill would change the definition of an ORV trail width to 57 inches minimum.The ARGO guys are gripping about paying the user fee of 16.25 for an ORV sticker and they cant ride anything legally but an ORV Route because their ARGOs are 57 inches wide and exceed the 50 inch max for an ORV trail.This Bill was introduced to the Senate Committee on Transportation on 1-29-03.Senator LeLand also introduced this Bill.
This Bill,if enacted,would move to widen all existing ORV trails to at least 57 inches.The problem here is with Public Act 300[the act by which your family transportation vehicle is licensed and regulated]-----There are vehicles TODAY that are not any wider than the proposed 57 inch width and the effect[by design]would be to allow them to access the ''newly''widened trails that were never intended for general transportation.This is not to mention the cost of widening/labor over 2000 miles plus of exsisting trails.I do not support this!!!
It would be FAR less expensive and ALOT less labor to re-open the L.P Forest roads and to keep the exsisting trails how they are now.We could use the same standards as the U.P?----Open unless posted closed and check local ordinances before riding.
Whats your thought?
Bill G.
#19
03-21-2003, 08:45 AM
MICHIGAN ORV FUND
I would suppose that 'my' first question on this (literally) GROUNDBREAKING proposal; would be to ask exactly 'who' stands up for 'what' concerning it !!!
Does it concern anyone but me that 'the rest of us' have to learn about these things from 'you', Bill (and thank you), especially when there are people out there who have gotten sick and tired of forcing our representative atv club to (finally) even make up a year's worth of scheduled meetings? Heck, the 'Hot Topic for Consideration' on the club website is an issue from '2001'(!) about 'noise on the sand dunes' and the forum owner has long ago stated that there will be NO POLITICS on the club website!
And if our representative atv club is so concerned about 'Alliances' with other clubs.............why do the 'rest of us' get the feeling that this cooperation has been managed to the point that any 'public' discussions rarely go beyond what the orv leaders themselves can agree on
'over dinner'; before the next orv board meeting?
In my opinion, you are one of the few who has had the kahunas to even 'dare' bring up subjects like this in the first place! Although I do think Log Leaper asked one of the best questions since I, 'shockingly', did long ago; about 'alliances' (and aren't we all looking forward to Chuck's question to finally be 'revealed' after it is 'screened' for content!).
This issue has been bantered around since 'at least' Jan. 29th................................and the sole representative atv club here in Michigan has had a 'quarterly' meeting since then.
So I ask again, what did the Michigan ATV Assoc. decide that they were PUBLICLY going to come out about this? Or do you send somebody into meetings with other orv groups, without any direction, and then report on what has already 'happened' at the next quarterly club meeting! ( "well, you know, we haven't really formulated a position on this widening issue; as discussions are ongoing and we figure to have that position known about the time the bill dies or passes"..........). Heck, the DNR has already come up with their position of being one of 'no support'!
And in the spirit of 'alliances'......what did our representative bring back from any meetings with the CCC since this bill was introduced? More, 'you know, you get more with honey, than vinegar' cliches and another 'well, we don't really know what the CCC's future view of the trail system is' (do you recall 'that')...........................?
How about the Michigan Motorcycle Dealer's Association, who is at every state orv board meeting; what do 'they' have to say about trail widening? Would a project such as this DELAY any potential construction of a 'Detroit' riding area that could conceivably mean more machines sold for their business members?
How about the Great Lakes 4WD Association; who is evidently feeling like the 'red-headed step-child' in state orv matters?
I guess I'll be ready to give 'my' opinion when I see that someone has been out there soliciting (and PUBLICIZING) what these OTHER groups have to say.................and if these groups don't want to publicly say 'anything'(which 'we' should be made aware of); what kind of 'atv' club representation do WE have and are they willing to finally, 'publicly', stand up for something themselves?
As I've always claimed; the only people who try and make issues 'rocket science' or 'confidential' are the same ones hoping that those very issues are shaped in 'their' perspective alone (or along with other orv groups, where the 'honey' subjects seem to be the only ones that are brought to light over breakfast).
Thanks, Bill; I respect the fact that you aren't afraid to have an opinion on this....................I just think it's a shame that we have to use the ATV Connection Forum to be 'allowed' to discuss it openly.
John
Does it concern anyone but me that 'the rest of us' have to learn about these things from 'you', Bill (and thank you), especially when there are people out there who have gotten sick and tired of forcing our representative atv club to (finally) even make up a year's worth of scheduled meetings? Heck, the 'Hot Topic for Consideration' on the club website is an issue from '2001'(!) about 'noise on the sand dunes' and the forum owner has long ago stated that there will be NO POLITICS on the club website!
And if our representative atv club is so concerned about 'Alliances' with other clubs.............why do the 'rest of us' get the feeling that this cooperation has been managed to the point that any 'public' discussions rarely go beyond what the orv leaders themselves can agree on
'over dinner'; before the next orv board meeting?
In my opinion, you are one of the few who has had the kahunas to even 'dare' bring up subjects like this in the first place! Although I do think Log Leaper asked one of the best questions since I, 'shockingly', did long ago; about 'alliances' (and aren't we all looking forward to Chuck's question to finally be 'revealed' after it is 'screened' for content!).
This issue has been bantered around since 'at least' Jan. 29th................................and the sole representative atv club here in Michigan has had a 'quarterly' meeting since then.
So I ask again, what did the Michigan ATV Assoc. decide that they were PUBLICLY going to come out about this? Or do you send somebody into meetings with other orv groups, without any direction, and then report on what has already 'happened' at the next quarterly club meeting! ( "well, you know, we haven't really formulated a position on this widening issue; as discussions are ongoing and we figure to have that position known about the time the bill dies or passes"..........). Heck, the DNR has already come up with their position of being one of 'no support'!
And in the spirit of 'alliances'......what did our representative bring back from any meetings with the CCC since this bill was introduced? More, 'you know, you get more with honey, than vinegar' cliches and another 'well, we don't really know what the CCC's future view of the trail system is' (do you recall 'that')...........................?
How about the Michigan Motorcycle Dealer's Association, who is at every state orv board meeting; what do 'they' have to say about trail widening? Would a project such as this DELAY any potential construction of a 'Detroit' riding area that could conceivably mean more machines sold for their business members?
How about the Great Lakes 4WD Association; who is evidently feeling like the 'red-headed step-child' in state orv matters?
I guess I'll be ready to give 'my' opinion when I see that someone has been out there soliciting (and PUBLICIZING) what these OTHER groups have to say.................and if these groups don't want to publicly say 'anything'(which 'we' should be made aware of); what kind of 'atv' club representation do WE have and are they willing to finally, 'publicly', stand up for something themselves?
As I've always claimed; the only people who try and make issues 'rocket science' or 'confidential' are the same ones hoping that those very issues are shaped in 'their' perspective alone (or along with other orv groups, where the 'honey' subjects seem to be the only ones that are brought to light over breakfast).
Thanks, Bill; I respect the fact that you aren't afraid to have an opinion on this....................I just think it's a shame that we have to use the ATV Connection Forum to be 'allowed' to discuss it openly.
John
#20
03-23-2003, 11:49 AM
MICHIGAN ORV FUND
(Two days later)
Uhhhhhhh.............................no takers?
Not 'one' person willing to tell us all what you all have decided to stand up for (regarding the widening of trails) at your last atv meeting?
Do I have to bring up what was stated at the last atv club meeting that 'I' attended?
Seems to me, that I remember somebody standing up and declaring what 'they' thought the standard width of our 'suburban Detroit' atv trails should be...............................
You know, I'm getting old and 'forgetful'...............but weren't all THEIR trails going to be maintained at even MORE than 57 inches?
You know, the funny thing I remember about that conversation; was that EVERYBODY in attendance that day was 100%(!!!) behind this expanded width and even considering naming their first born son after the man that claimed it was going to happen!
I can only assume 'today'; that any atv club involved in any talks regarding a proposed 57"' expanded width...................................are probably now arguing that this width is TOO NARROW when compared with the "60" inches that their leaders felt 'Detroit' trails should have had the exclusive right to be maintained at!
C'mon guys, is somebody keeping the family jewels in a jar on the windowsill; or are there a lot of you out there with just 'very bad' memories?
I'm sorry, but isnt all this 'secret society' stuff getting pretty ridiculous? How about those of us who would consider a 'widened' trail system; built through many years of hard work; to be just as fine a 'legacy' as putting your name on a new riding area outside of Detroit or making sure the nearby suburban trails were 'groomed' for city folk?
We have a simple choice.
We can either follow the path of our 'founders' and claim that only 'one' machine should have access to OUR public trails and that 'they' should always have the exclusive rights to their use........................'or'................... .....we can start demanding that our leaders quit cowtowing to these other groups who believe this and start standing up for ALL of the people that they claim they want to represent and 'work with'.
Until then; get used to the old 'Wizard of Oz' line.................'pay no attention to the man behind the curtain'! [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img]
Uhhhhhhh.............................no takers?
Not 'one' person willing to tell us all what you all have decided to stand up for (regarding the widening of trails) at your last atv meeting?
Do I have to bring up what was stated at the last atv club meeting that 'I' attended?
Seems to me, that I remember somebody standing up and declaring what 'they' thought the standard width of our 'suburban Detroit' atv trails should be...............................
You know, I'm getting old and 'forgetful'...............but weren't all THEIR trails going to be maintained at even MORE than 57 inches?
You know, the funny thing I remember about that conversation; was that EVERYBODY in attendance that day was 100%(!!!) behind this expanded width and even considering naming their first born son after the man that claimed it was going to happen!
I can only assume 'today'; that any atv club involved in any talks regarding a proposed 57"' expanded width...................................are probably now arguing that this width is TOO NARROW when compared with the "60" inches that their leaders felt 'Detroit' trails should have had the exclusive right to be maintained at!
C'mon guys, is somebody keeping the family jewels in a jar on the windowsill; or are there a lot of you out there with just 'very bad' memories?
I'm sorry, but isnt all this 'secret society' stuff getting pretty ridiculous? How about those of us who would consider a 'widened' trail system; built through many years of hard work; to be just as fine a 'legacy' as putting your name on a new riding area outside of Detroit or making sure the nearby suburban trails were 'groomed' for city folk?
We have a simple choice.
We can either follow the path of our 'founders' and claim that only 'one' machine should have access to OUR public trails and that 'they' should always have the exclusive rights to their use........................'or'................... .....we can start demanding that our leaders quit cowtowing to these other groups who believe this and start standing up for ALL of the people that they claim they want to represent and 'work with'.
Until then; get used to the old 'Wizard of Oz' line.................'pay no attention to the man behind the curtain'! [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img]