I'm sorry to say that I wasn't at the last meating, or any that you have mentioned, but if the folks that are listening would that were there would speak up, and give their oppinions it would help to push this along. as much as some of you think you have it under control and your reps are doing their job. for some people it doesn't happen fast enough, I can wait a little longer, but only time will tell if the state is going to be fair and give every group their own trails or open county and forest roads. think hard there has to be away!

 

yetti,

Unfortunately, there are plenty of (active) members out there listening to this. I really hate to 'shame' some of them into speaking up; but they are going to have to choose between; 1) what would be 'nice' (the 'backyard' Detroit riding area that they seem to believe is going to be the 'reward' for keeping their mouths shut on every issue) and 2) that we all may just have to spend a good part of the rest of our lives 'fixing' the trails we already have in use.
"#2" probably won't result in increased sales for those of us who sell machines in suburbia; or allow any windfall for whoever desires a 'pay-to-play' area or their name on a plaque out front.....................but it sure will make the 'rest' of us feel that we did the proper thing for the next generation of riders.

Believe me, yetti; betweeen you, Bill and myself..............................we have brought up more issues and asked more legitimate questions than any number of atv club members COMBINED; in the history of this state.

I may not agree with everything you (or Bill) will ever have to say on a given subject(which I consider 'normal')..........but it's people like yourself who I will always respect and admire for having had the guts to demand that these issues be PUBLICLY stood up for in the first place.

Now let's see what they all have to say....................................[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img]

Can we just start with: What organizations oppose or support this bill and 'why'?
Or is this just too much to ask from us 'rural peons'; who maybe are only be good for an annual 'renewal' check and the hope that we keep our mouths shut for another 2 or 3 months?[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-sad.gif[/img]

 

John,
it was very unclear whether our MATVA leader was against or for the 57 inch trail?He asked membership what they thought and we gave our opinions,I was certain to give mine,just like I did in here.

He did mention that he thought it would'nt cost any more money to bring all existing trails to 57 inches.I dont understand how he figures it not to cost any more money?I know Bill Chapin and the CCC do NOT support the 57inch trailways.They are also in agreement that we should instead move to make the L.P just like the U.P,---open unless posted closed and check local riding ordinances before riding.

Im happy that the ATVer has a representative in Lansing now,but after 3yrs of this,im asking myself how we[the ATVer]is much better off now than we were 3 yrs ago?Maybe im a little impatient to?I guess we can say that we have achomplised,

1.A few better ATV trails to ride as a direct result of our OWN clubs efforts with trail maintenance.
2.A little better method of ATV Safety training that ALSO has a direct financial benifit for the director of the program.
3.A better perception to the general public about ATVers in general,this is also a direct result of better ATV training programs.
4.A better way to inform Michigan Riders about upcoming rides and events,though this is mainly due to Jeff V and myself.This required MUCH pursuading/convincing by myself and Jeff V before our President would concider this open website.I will say that now he is very convinced and happy he decided to go with it.

I know things take time and patience for change,but some things seem like an eternity?

Bill

 

Bill,

I would not argue for a 'second' that the 4 items you mentioned above were not very important first steps in the evolution of our sport here in MI.

There is also no way that I would ever try to 'minimize' the pure effort and accomplishments of those who have taken on the tasks mentioned (as a matter of fact; if a few people didn't have the tendency to talk out of 'both' sides of their mouth on simple, voluntary matters.........I am certain that my efforts could have been somewhat included).

My big question here is this: HOW IN THE HECK COULD THAT MANY PEOPLE SIT IN AN ATV CLUB MEETING; WHEN SUCH AN ***IMPORTANT*** LEGISLATIVE ISSUE IS BEING LOBBIED (***BY THEIR OWN CLUB***) AND NOT HAVE "ONE PERSON" WILLING TO STAND UP AND COMMENT..............."Uhhhhhhhhhhh, we 'know' you've been sending 'SOMEBODY' to the meetings on this extremely crucial issue for all of us.....................JUST WHAT IN THE HECK HAS HE BEEN 'DOING'; 'WHO' HAS BEEN SAYING 'WHAT' ABOUT THIS PENDING BILL AND JUST WHERE IN THE HECK ARE YOU TELLING ALL THESE 'OTHER' PEOPLE THAT 'OUR' CLUB STANDS ON THIS!!!

I'm not trying to say this should have been 'you' Bill; as I read my CCC (cycle club) newsletter and they are definitely in lock-step agreement with you in your opposition. But isn't it ironic that YOU were the one in that meeting who had to stand up and give YOUR position and not our atv board representative?

What in the heck is going on here?

Again, I don't want to minimize the accomplishments that you mentioned above and the hard work of the people who did it and are continuing to do so. But I just wanted to comment on something you mentioned above:

....." Im happy that the ATVer has a representative in Lansing now,but after 3yrs of this,im asking myself how we[the ATVer]is much better off now than we were 3 yrs ago?........."

There is no question that we have to have a representative in Lansing and I'm glad that somebody has taken the benefits of non-profit incorporation and filled it. I am also happy that someone has started a good safety program for this state and is able to financially benefit from its operation.

On the other hand, if we don't have somebody that is going to come back to ALL of us (remember, we are always trying to get people 'excited' about the 'personally related' challenges that our leaders face; which hopefully translates into memberships and participation) with TIMELY information; what in the heck do we have 'now' and what do you expect is going to happen in the 'next' 3 years?

I am just speechless that this issue is not 'important' enough (by your account) to even get a hand raised.

Two things it tells this aging hillbilly:

#1) It pretty much confirms that there is no place in this organization for me, if the people in it 'now' care so little about what is happening around them (or follow their leaders so blindly that they are afraid to ask the simplest of questions).

and

#2) I can only attribute this behavior to the (since 'lost') club mission statement that listed building a 'big city'(Detroit) riding area out of most of their back doors; as the main goal of this club (which I would bet a 'dollar' got more discussion than fixing some trail in the U.P. or West Michigan).

I guess my last question would be this:

Isn't there a member of that club who wonders why 'their' (in close proximity to Detroit) trails somehow 'deserved' to be maintained to a full 60 inches at a previous meeting? (w/potential grooming to boot!).........................and now they should somehow deny the 'rest' of the state from getting even 57 ?

Oh, I forgot; that 60 inches you were all going to maintain 'your' trails at was supposed to be 'top secret' (remember?)....................................... .......................................

Thanks for the reply, Bill; I want to open the L.P. also. I'm just not sure that our leaders aren't using an issue that they themselves don't think has a chance in hell of ever happening.............. to come out squarely against an issue that needs to be accomplished RIGHT NOW; for our grandchildren.

 

A sidenote:

Has anybody considered the fact that these clubs won't make a DIME in trail maintenance money; when/if or during each trail's 'reconstruction'?

And how much more 'competition' (for this money) do you think there will be 'afterwards'; to more easily maintain a nicely widened trail that is up to standards?

And the BIG question: Who would threaten to DROP OUT of the trail maintenance program if wider trail widths were mandated? In other words, would somebody finally stand up and tell a certain club that they (or nobody else) will continue to claim SINGLE-USE trails as their own?

Do we have a leader who has the kahunas to stand up to those who might 'threaten' this; or not?

Sorry, but I've heard about how 'embarrased' somebody was with another club's behavior..................................so are 'we' now, no better than 'them'?

 

John,
you raise a good question?What did our general meeting achomplish in regards to the 57inch trails and what OFFICIAL unit of legislation will our President take our concerns and comments to,if any?I plan to address this question myself in our Forum.

TRAIL MAINTENANCE?
I cant see anybody making any $$ of this proposed trail widening.We dont have enough Grant sponsers or voluntees to do what we have now,and I can only hope that others wont drop out.Mich ORV system does not support cycle only[ trails.As I understand it,the only differance between an ORV TRAIL and a cycle trail are the width specs of each,and either the 50 inch trail or 24 inch cycle trail does not discriminate ATV or cycle use.

Bill

 

Bill,

I guess what I am getting at; is that it seems that our leadership has backed themselves into a corner.

On one hand, they have told their members that there should be no reason that they shouldn't be allowed to maintain THEIR trails at 60 inches.......................

But when legislation is proposed to try and get ALL the ORV groups to work ***TOGETHER*** and maintain ALL the trails at 57 inches....................what can they possibly be against 'now'?

Is it possible that somebody doesn't 'dare' oppose the CCC on this? We have already been told that trail widening is an issue that ".....'requires' the support of all other grant sponsors to make it happen'(and this was only in reference to a single 'pilot' trail)....and that this would be such a massive undertaking that ....."personally, if I did not agree with it, I most likely would not be encouraged to do the work...."

So...............if the CCC won't help do the work or 'support' any trail widening project PERIOD (I'm not even going to 'repeat' what their exact words to me were on this very subject) how can our leaders come out in favor of ALL trails being widened without 'upsetting' the CCC? Or, not wanting to do that; did somebody figure that the only trails that were going to get widened to 60 inches and 'groomed'; were those outside 'Detroit' and this fact neeeded to be kept within the club itself?

One of these days, somebody in state govt. (Sen. Garcia?) is going to come right out and tell some of these groups that it has been very nice dealing with them and that they have done a great deal for our trail system...................closely followed by a scathing admonishment; for the 'hijacking' of this trail system.
Why? Who is now refusing to help expand a MULTI-USE trail system or maintain the same?
Does this sound familiar?................ 'we want to ride trails that are 'only' a certain width; and the state darn well better accomodate us on this and let us keep all our 'own' trails.......... or we'll quit the program altogether'! [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-sad.gif[/img]

Do we have leaders 'now' that, upon hearing this; would jump up and (regrettably) hold that door open and show them 'and' their arrogance; the way 'out'?

By the way, I just wanted to clarify that I never implied above that any club was 'making money' on trail maintenance.....................................so did anybody at the last meeting bother to ask exactly 'why' the club was so upset that the state stepped in and made a better bid for that equipment money?(one example being able to hire full or part-time workers?).

As these leaders are always saying............."Oh gosh, no; it's not about the 'money'..........it's all about everybody working together for a common goal"..................

Or....... 'sorry, but we have no idea what any other club's future view of the trail system is'..........................................

C'mon guys!

 

John,
leadership backs are against the wall in a certain way because each user group wants ''their''trails grommed to their specs.In other words,the ATVer groups would love to have all 3100 miles of ORV trails groomed to 57 or 60 inches,on the other hand,you have the CCC or cyclist that started these trails in the 1960s and want the tighter,more technicle trails at 24 inches for their cycles.You also have the 4x4 ORV truck users that want every trail cut to 6ft wide.If legislation were ever to propose a complete widening of the entire trail system,I fear we would than loose the CCC[Michigan's biggest trail maintenance sponser] as a sponser of trail maintenance,and rightfully so,if not for the CCC,Michigan would have NO ORV trail system in the first place,period!As you can see for the reasons I mentioned above that you will probably never have all the differant user groups agree to widen all the ORV trail system?Because of differant user wants/needs,you'll not see these differant user groups agree on ONE width.

There is an answer,and it goes right back to re-opening up the L.P the same way it used to be in the pre 1991 era.Open unless posted closed and check local ordinances before riding.This keeps our current trails the width they are and will keep most users/sponsers happy.Most every rider I talked to wants this L.P. opening to happen,including myself and CCC leaders to.I also am in favor of a numbered type [plate]registration for all ORVs,this would make policing our sport much easier and should cut down on user abuses.

John,you lost me a little.I had no idea the State made a better bid on equipment money.I missed a few ORV Board meetings and this could be WHY?

I have another issue with regards to our Safety Education program.The DOE was adopted in 1996 to run this safety education program and have done a terrible job getting this thing off the ground.Today,7 yrs LATER,I still have a TON of folks that dont know WHERE or HOW to get training???I have brought this to the Boards attention on several occasions.My last answer was that it was up to the safety sponser to get the word out on the program.The Board told me that every ORV Guidebook has the laws in it and each ORV sticker purchase should come with a ORV guidebook?This is like looking for a needle in a haystack,its there,SOMEWHERE!

Since the DOE is responsable for the implimation of the safety program,than why would it be such a task to instill these ORV safety programs in school newpapers ect so that ALL can see????Here again,thats on the shoulder of the safety sponser to see that this gets done.WHY???

Is that not like asking me for a ride to Florida but you want me to pay for the gas to???Go figure------????

Bill

 

I can't access the (next to the last?) orv board meeting minutes for some reason; but it basically noted that 'our' representative was AGAINST having the state being able to compete with 'them' for availiable equipment money. Is this 'cooperation'? If the state can go out and hire two guys to start maintaining the Baldwin area trails a little better than part-time volunteers 'possibly' could in their spare time....................what's the problem?
I guess the first question 'I' (the state) would be asking a motorcycle club (the grant sponsor of that trail) would be the following:
"And we're certain that any change in 'control' of this trail section will make no difference to the people (or the club) currently maintaining it. Judging from your long speeches in the past about 'alliances' and 'working together'...........we are sure that we will see just as many or 'more' of your workers out there, by our side; helping us to improve 'your' former trail."

I'm just a hayseed farmboy...................but is this going to happen?

As far as the contrast between motorcycle/atv users and each party's desired width of our trails; let's leave the full-size 4WD people out of our discussion for the sake of 'this' argument.

We both believe that the lack of proper law enforcement is a HUGE problem in our state. Mainly that officers can't even 'identify' someone from a sticker or tiny license plate and (9 times out of 10); they're in the next 'county', before LE has a prayer of catching anybody).
So 'when' is law enforcement going to look a motorcycle club in the eye and say:...."you know, we don't really give a damn about how 'tight' you want all your trails to be! We've got a law-breaking epidemic here that threatens ALL of our trails! Furthermore, we have the 'crazy' notion that the more trails that are reasonably PASSABLE by atvs....................................the more atvs that have a better chance of using and staying on the trails!"

Gee, what a concept! Some quad riders aren't as likely to go out and 'violate'`............because trails that they refuse to use and are a legitimate danger to their kids (see Little 'O', Cedar Creek, Tomahawk and how many 'cycle' trails) are now 'open' enough, for them to start recreating on! There is no way that this is going to appeal to EVERYBODY (I could care less about the 'jerks' of this world); but don't you think that even the Michigan 'tourism' industry would benefit from people 'finally' being able to ride all the trails that we 'now' have availiable?

You know, as well as I; that the young people coming up behind us aren't going to give a tinker's dam about belonging to 'exclusive' clubs. They may ride motorcycles and their buddies may ride quads; but all of them feel pretty darn good that they are riding 'anything'; PERIOD! (big mortgages, car loans and family expenses are obviously taking a large chunk of their future incomes).
My point is; we don't have a chance in hell of getting 'good' numbers of people out there on maintenance runs; until the motorcyclists decide that they don't have some kind of squatter's rights to 'tight' trails and even start kicking some of their 'old guard' to the curb. How do you think some young man is going to react to what 'I' have been told 'point blank'................'well, if it was up to us; all trails wouldn't be maintained any wider than our handlebars!'

What in the hell kind of attitude is that? And this young guy is going to convince his atv (which already outsell 'cycles'; 3 to 1) 'buddies'; that they ought to come out and maintain trails that they can't even ride? Sorry, but the kids of today, DON'T CARE WHAT YOU RIDE and sure as hell aren't going to gravitate towards any club that thinks otherwise.

And where does that leave 'us'; if our leaders have been 'mentored' in the.......... '"belly up to the non-profit trough; COVER EACH OTHER'S BACK and keep as much information as possible to ourselves" school of club organization?

Square 'against' bills like Senator Garcia's.............................and if the motorcycle people 'quit'; maybe some trails will have to be closed down until the people of Michigan decide that forming a club for 'everybody' (and standing up for what's actually needed) is the only way we're going to get them back open! Why do we deserve trails that we ALL aren't willing to work on? And why should we give a damn about some state employee who HAS to make everything go smoothly and doesn't want some major organization dropping out of a maintenance program (for their own 'selfish' reasons) on 'their' work record?

Believe me, these people are steadfast enough in their beliefs as to what trails they have a God-given exclusive 'right' to; that a 'confrontation' is going to have to happen sooner or later.

Senator Garcia has just told them that that day is (hopefully) a lot sooner than they think.

And they aren't too darn happy about it! [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img]

Sorry, Bill; but I'll have to comment on your other points some other time.

Thanks for your opinion

 

John,
if the State or any other organization has a better idea and can out bid current grant sponsers for a giving trail,maybe they ought to be giving the chance to prove themselves?MATVA has asked for certain trail maintenance obligations and has done a wonderful job clearing up their trails.They have done such a nice job that a yr later,they requested a few more trails and were granted them.However,there are certain other grant sponsers that receive grant funding and their trails STINK.I have no real problem with outsiders trying to clean up our trails,we dont have enough of our own volunteers right now to get the job done CORRECTLY.

You can bet your bottom dollar that if this were to happen,the CCC and others may threaten to leave the program[this has allready been stated].I would want a back up plan READY to take action if such a thing were to happen,because I DONT support any trail closeures.

Part of me can see how the CCC feels about the above because THEY are the ones that prompted/started this entire trail system dating back to the 60s.And part of me says that this is 2003 and ATV use is far more dominent than cycle use in Michigan[3-1] now and it time for them to realize this and MOVE FORWARD or step aside!And I can tell you this much,I dont support this trail widening right now.However,if we do not get to open the L.P and this proposed widening is still on the burners,I would have no choice but to support such a bill.I dont not like the current width of our 50inch ATV trails but opening up the L.P should help to keep most users happy?

I suppose right now,its a wait/see game?

Bill