I would agree that 'changing the law' and opening the Lower Peninsula back up for our access would be a huge move in the right direction.

But if this change has even a 'slight' chance of succeeding...............................what have our leaders been telling us are the 'true' odds of this happening, for say; the last couple years? I'm sorry, but I haven't heard 'one' of them stand up and say that this was anywhere 'near' a possibility (or that they were pushing somebody 'hard' to even have it considered) until this widening issue came up? I'm not saying that it always wasn't a 'goal'...........................but if they are putting it out there as an 'alternative' ; then you would think that they have already calculated that it has a better than 'even' chance of getting done! My next question would be: 'why' do they feel this way (giving specific examples) and failing that; maybe it's time for some people to stand right up and give their 'real' opinions on widened trails!.........which we've been demanding for 'how' long(?) and which everybody refuses to talk about;simply because they don't have the kahunas to do it! ("uhhhhhh, 'gosh', I can't say anything that would go against my fellow orv board rep!").

What about letting an atv club maintain their trails to '60' inches and then when somebody like Senator Garcia proposes maintaining them 3 inches shorter at 57 inches...............all hell breaks loose and 'we just can't have that'? Was it the state, the DNR, the cycle club or all three that told our atv club this was "O.K."; and why is everybody suddenly having a case of amnesia regarding this?

I respect the fact that you were the only person willing to ask your president where he stands on this; frankly, 'historic' widening issue and I would be even more curious as to why this position wasn't stated at your club meeting or much earlier; when people were being sent in to discussions and 'speak for the club'. Can this club consciously come out 'against' this issue when it has already sought and obtained even larger (wider) considerations for itself?
They have already stated that any widening issue is 'DOA' if other clubs aren't on board with it..................well 'gosh'; isn't that just how the cycle club would just as soon have it?

'Wait and see'; I suppose; hopefully not before this bill 'dies' and people don't have time to react to what has happened here.

I apoligize that I didn't get to your former points; as I have to get going.

 

John,
to my knowledge,I dont know for sure if our club official has said a thing to anyone important in regards to opening up the L.P?I also dont know if the CCC officials have raised the L.P question?I do plan on calling the CCC this week and getting a response from them.I have allready posed this question to our club leader in our Forum,with no response yet.

I'll wait for a response from club leaders before I pass judgement any further.I'd like to know were they stand before the next ORV board meeting.

Bill

 

From what I've seen in the motorcycle club newsletter (I'm a 'former' member); they have been in contact with Mr. Garcia at an ARGO dealership(?) to voice their displeasure with his bill (were any atv clubs reps. in attendance and when did this happen?). The article seems to imply that their alternate support for L.P. road openings was voiced at that time.

I will sit back and wait for this to be explained also.

Thanks,

John

 

Well, I'm back from vacation (another $1000 spent in KY./TN.; rather than here) and see that Bill started right off by asking his widening question the 'wrong' way! Our representative, of course; had to 'correct him' on this (rolleyes)..........and 'then' goes on to weasel his way around not having to answer the question; AGAIN!!! Unbelievable! (well...not 'really'; if you've been following this for any length of time).

Then we find a 'troublemaker' called bartojc; who simply comes out and asks the following:

....." What I'd like to know is where does MATVA stand on this issue? We know where the CCC stands. It would be nice for the ATV's to show a united front, but until it is stated what the leadership wants to do we can only guess"........................................

(from Blackballed):

Gosh, is this guy asking that 'tough' a question? Must be.... BECAUSE IT NEVER GOT ANSWERED WITH AN EXPLANATION; SO THAT ANYBODY 'NOT' AT THAT MEETING COULD MAKE A DECISION OF SUPPORT OR NOT!!!
What in the heck are you club members going to do? Any time you want a question on an issue answered; are you to...............'FIRST' make sure you are asking it 'correctly' (evidently Bill had a little problem with that)............. and then go to some 'website' because your rep won't repeat anything in public............... and then wait 4 MONTHS to ask them in person?

I'm surprised that bartojc didn't get a response that went something like this:
...... "Well, I 'told you' what my position was at that meeting.......and if you weren't there to hear it(or didn't understand); it's too damn bad; because I'm not going to repeat it in public!"

Heck, the CCC's at least got the kahunas to come out 'against' it, right in their newsletter and give a reason why!
Or is somebody not wanting to tell these Argo guys why 'they' can't have 57" wide trails .............but 'his' atv club ought to darn well have '60'; out Detroit's back door?

And where in the hell is this guy who has been attending all these 'meetings',regarding this issue(?).....while all the while speaking FOR the club?

Cat got his tongue?............... or has this 'we only say something every 4 months' indoctrination; taken hold beyond the 'family' level?

If you guys/gals think FOR A MINUTE that this is going to be the LAST issue you get the 'ignore and wait 'em out' treatment on..................................I've got some nice 'lowland' for sale in southwest Michigan that you're gonna love!

Just keep saying to yourself........."Screw the rest of the state and their narrow trails; he'll get me a Detroit riding area...........'Screw' the rest of the state and their narrow trails; he'll get me a Detroit riding area.......'Screw' the rest of the state....................

 

John,
we still have'nt received an answer from our club leader in regards to questions on where does OUR leadership stand on this widening and L.P issue?Thats OK,because after awhile of the waiting game,I get frustrated enough to go and talk to other officials that have been in the ORV programs for a very long time and they will at least give the the time of day and talk things over with me in a timely manner.Perhaps RR is out of town and unable to respond because I have not seen a response from him in any MATVA forum since I posted last wk?

I,very much like yourself am sick and tired of the ''wait and see''approach that seems to take place on some ORV issue's.I want to know what and how I can help our cause instead of just bringing up issue's and having no positive answers/solutions for them.

A good source of information can be answered by calling the CCC and ask for Bill Chapin @1517-569-9999.He has been in this ORV field for a long time.

Bill

 

I'm going to ask the same questions again:

#1) What opposition has layed down and 'died' since these orv groups have been 'supposedly' pushing the lower peninsula road opening issue all this time? And if the opposition is even stronger than before.................what makes these groups think they have a better chance of repealing this closure rule 'now' than previously?
Even more importantly, what in the heck does opening these areas have to do with FIXING the ones we already have? These guys don't even want a 'state of the trail system' report done; which would truly hold them to the standards they enjoy referencing to US with their 'holier than thou' attitude. Evidently, these 'standards' only apply when it's applicable to their present agenda; because they sure don't apply to the condition of most of the trails we have 'now' ............so 'gee', who's fault is the negligent lawsuit going to be this 'next' time?(and we all sure as hell know it's going to happen).
Do our orv leaders believe that the riding public will now 'forget' the widening issue; if they simply start hollering about another issue (L.P. opening) in which the first two questions above; will (assuredly) go unanswered?

#2) I want somebody, as a member of a Michigan atv club; to come on here and tell me why they felt their leader was the second coming of Christ when he claimed THEIR (Detroit area) trails should be maintained to 60 inches.........................yet when somebody 'else' proposes 57..............you look down, while shuffling your feet................ and back the same guy in opposing it! (oh, I'm sorry; he actually didn't 'say' he opposed it.....did he?).

Who wants to take a bet that nobody will care to answer any of the questions above?

One thing's for sure; these leaders will take that bet. And for the simple reason that they realized a long time ago that there weren't but a few people out there who were willing to hold them accountable for their policies.

And 'hey'................ if you can make sure that a couple hundred Detroiters are willing to sit on the sidelines with their mouths 'shut'; by promising them a fancy 'big city' riding area..........................what is the true quality of the people you are asking to 'speak for themselves' anyways?

After getting a good, long glimpse into the 'mindset' of some suburban Detroiters...........I have never been more thankful to live right here in 'rural' Michigan!

 

John,
I dont know this to be a fact of matter for our current status on re-opening the L.P,but I can tell you that back in the early 90s when the L.P got shut down,the enviro guys had alot to do with it and so did misuse and abuse.Im sure if our officials push this L.P thing to the max,the enviro guys will be around to oppose it?


Re-opening the LP does not have a damn thing[NOTHING] to do with fixing the trails we currently have now.SB100 would be in place to cut ALL exsisting cycle and ATV trails to a width of 57 inches.Instead of doing this,the CCC has recommending leaving the current trails as they are and re-opening up the LP instead.This keeps the cycle guys happy on their tighter 24inch trails and will keep most ATVers happy at the same time?

One has to ask this question though?Does the CCC TRULY oppose this 57 inch trail widening in hopes it will re-open the LP so they can keep their trails at 24 inches,or is this re-opening the LP just a ''smoke screen''by the CCC in hopes that just ''maybe''we may forget about re-opening the LP after SB100 is turned down???[I see you also asked this question]

I cant even get our ''own''club leader to answer my questions in our own Forum,I see no reason to beleive he'd come in here and respond?

I for one a sick and tired of this ''wait and see''game.Maybe its time to ruffle a few feathers in the next ORV meeting?????

Bill

 

I'm thinking that there are a few people who are darn glad that the last meeting got canceled.[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img]

 

Hi Bill and John,
I guess it's my fault that you think that the CCC club or someone else created a smokescreen that took away from the 57inch trail issue. I had wrote and expressed interest in the lower penisula 3 or 4 months ago when everyone was looking for ideas and alternative to opening new trails. I would think that the prospects the state paying to widen or open more or reopen old trails is pretty slim. Say without any expense to the state they could reopen the lower penisula to open orv and atv riders and it wouldn't be any more of a burden on law enforcement then they have now. Sorry for the confusion.
Yetti

 

Yetti,
I blame you for nothing.You see,after many yrs of discussing certain issue's and watching nothing happen about them and all a sudden there's this big interest in re-opening the LP,just makes me wonder if certain ORV groups want to discuss these issue's NOW,just to protect their OWN interests,you know,like keeping a cycle trail to a 24 inch width?

I appreciate your feedback!

Bill