well said Mike , paddling in different directions, lol. I agree 100% that trail maintanance could be much more PUBLICIZED, if you are looking to recruit people for a TASK the MEDIA is one of the best ways. I've personally showed interest in trail maintanance "becoming a TRAILBOSS" and am conserned about the same issues.(insurance/equip/people) I'm on the fence here about grooming ALL trails to the 50" designation just because DNR says so on trail maps, SOME trails can just be for motorcycles only, just like I'm sure they dont like to FLOP in a MUD BOG or TRAVERSE SOME ROCKS/LOGS like I do, My son has a KX 80 so I understand both sides. As Bill said there are thousands of trails to ride, be it atv or orv,. Heck there are even more out there than THEY no about, but these are just the LEGAL ones RIGHT!!!! I've rode 1200 miles since purchasing my quad the Xmas before and I have yet to ride 1/4 of the trails that this BEAUTIFUL state has to offer.Sure some trails could use alittle work, some alot. Bottom line WE have had (ATV'ers)a SURPLUS of MONEY for YEARS that needs to be USED RESPONSIBLY before some politician ends up with it. With the amount that there is available you COULD HIRE A CREW and in 2 years have ALL TRAILS maintained to SPECS., that is the true goal correct.

I dont belong to any club, I wonder how the CCC or MATVA would accept my situation as enjoying both. I dont want to be in both (son ccc - me/wife matva) and have conflicts with each other over these issues, that wouldn't make any sense either,kinda reminds me of a double edged sword. How do you see that Bill being from both CLUBS. I believe there's PLACES and AREAS for EVERYBODY to ENJOY. LETS RIDE.

scott

 

John thanks for not making it offensive twords anyone and also for continuing.

As far as the clubs needing insurance for volenteers I do not believe they would need it. This fall the local Snowmobile club put a big add in the paper recruiting volenteeres to clear the deadfall from the trails, they had a large turn out and they got the job done. people used equipment some theirs some brought by the club.

I think we all had good points to make, an probably can agree on them. I Wasn't trying to "bash" the trails or the club that maintains them I just wanted to pass along my observation of this trail in particular to perspective users.

Thanks it is an interesting subject to discuss, although it was not my original intent, if your ever in the area and want to ride give me a holler.

-Mike

 

Thanks, Mike and sure do appreciate the offer. Your comment regarding non club member volunteers being recruited for trail maintenance is very interesting as either 1)I have been given bad information and you do not have to be a club member; 2)there IS a way to insure folks on a daily basis or 3)this event wasn't necessarily by the book.

I want to repeat something that I had mentioned earlier and is the thrust of what I've really been trying to get across. Log Leaper mentions that he wonders how the CCC and MATVA would accept his situation as enjoying both forms of recreation. I know for a fact that neither club discriminates between the two and that CCC claims at least 30% of their members have quads. His concern about being in both clubs(or one or the other for that matter) and having conflicts is also a non-issue that I'm sure Bill will attest to. What I'm trying to say is that we need to take away ALL BARRIERS (wether we have to pay people's insurance for one day who can't 'afford' it or whatever)to finally say to those who ride: you can help us; IF YOU WANT TO! In doing this, we will finally have a handle on how MANY riders (club members or not) in this state understand and truly CARE about our trail system through their efforts physicaly, monetarily or both. The 'club' and 'historical' debate will be over as we will work together with NO excuses and be stronger for it.

Thanks to everybody that contributed,

John

 

Scott,
I support both user groups[ATVs and Bikes]because I beleive they are both attempting to keep the trails OPEN by BOTH supporting trail maintenance programs.I do wish that both of us could some day[real soon]meet on a common ground?

I cant speak on behalf of the snowmobile guys,but you do indeed need insurance to partake in ANY trail maintenance issues concerning ORVS/ATVS.Thats why you also would need to belong to a ORV/ATV club to help out,they are allready insured.

You guys all have some very interesting issues that need addressing,keep it up,we'll get there some day??

Bill

 

John,
I dont have any real evidence to support this claim other than talking to CCC members,but I beleive the 30% ATV membership is HIGHLY over exaggerated.I've been told its much closer to 5% ATV users in the CCC.This is fairly evident in the CCCs monthly TrailRider Magazine.I get that magazine EVERY month and very seldom do you see issues or articles concerning ATVs??About 95% of their advertised rides are for bikes,most all their advertising is fronted towards bikes to.


Bill

 

Hey John, I did some looking and found on the DNR website in an application booklet for grant application that it is mandatory for the club to provide liability insurance of 1 million dollars for anyone participating in trail maint. activities. So your right you have to be a member to help out even. It states that the insurance is to cover the states butt just in case.

this information and more interesting information was located at


DNR pdf document acrobat reader required

[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif[/img] [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif[/img] [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif[/img] [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif[/img] [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif[/img] [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif[/img] [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif[/img] [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif[/img] [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif[/img] [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif[/img] [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif[/img] [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif[/img] [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif[/img] [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif[/img] [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif[/img] [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif[/img] [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif[/img] [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif[/img] [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif[/img] [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif[/img] [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif[/img] [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif[/img] [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif[/img] [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif[/img] [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif[/img]

 

I think Bill spoke VOLUMES when he simply stated that he supported both groups because they are basically the only people that are KEEPING the trails open with their trail maintenance programs. Our description of some of these trails is not lost on the DNR as they will close down ANY trail in a heartbeat if it is not properly maintained(see Norway Trails by Iron Mt.). This is the bottom line in any trail debate.

Bill, my info regarding the 30% figure came straight from a leader of the CCC over the phone. He also stated that they have over 4,000 dues paying members.

Thank you both for the insurance info and Mike also for the DNR link. I think anybody that read these posts might now have a better understanding, through your comments, of why individual participation is so important for everyone that rides.

John

 

John,
I know what Bill Chapin[Pres of CCC] tells you about ATV membership within the CCC,I still doubt thats a true figure?Remember,he will tell you [the ATVer] what you want to hear and thats not allways the real facts/figures.

I dont like to slam other cycle riding groups about their lack of proper trail maintenance procedures,however,I have rode SEVERAL trailheads that receive grant $$ to maintain an ATV trail to[50 inches]and after riding it,I know damn well the trail was not even TOUCHED that yr,my bet is they[grant sponser]still got paid grant funds for maintenance on it by just filling out the proper trail completion papers and getting it into the DNR?

Could this be because this trail is maintained by a cycle group and they must maintain ATV specs??

Think about it??

Bill

 

Couple of things (great topic , by the way). The bike guys like the trails narrow. That's what my stepbrother says. I'm sure thats why little effort has been given to keep the trails at a 50" width. Also, what has the CCC been doing the past ten years? There have been multiple trail closures and neglect. We've even been out "boondocking" and found old, still marked trail systems in disuse. I can also show you an old CCC campground all grown over in the UP. What's up with that? IMO opinion the CCC has dropped the ball or lost their passion for what they do. We need fresh blood dedicated to ALL orv enthusiasts . Number of wheels shouldn't matter. MATVA is poised to take their place. Maybe they will bring some renewed vigour to our trail system management. I sure relish the idea of fellow enthusiasts working to preserve and embellish their cause.

 

In my opinion, there are four issues here that SOMEBODY doesn't want to be brought out in public for honest debate and ,dare I say it, necesarry QUICK action:

1) The 50" minimum being ridiculously narrow as a multi-use trail standard. If you have a 49" standard quad, even going to 60"(not even the distance between your wrist and tip of your pinkie on each side MORE)is hardly safe for a novice rider,especially in the turns that are an integral part of proper trail design.

2) The OFFICIAL position of ANY club on PHYSICALLY working together with another club for, not the trail maint. money, but the good of the trail system and the correct EQUIPMENT that this cooperation brings. The clubs know that as long as this division of responsibilities exists, very little will be accomplished with the proper machinery as the state darn well isn't going to purchase the high dollar equipment (and qualified operators) that are needed for BOTH clubs(they shouldn't HAVE to). Meanwhile, they both get their money each year and buy equipment such as graders and hand saws to simply smooth trails and cut brush rather than being ABLE to get machines that cut trees and bust stumps.

3) The FUTURE disposition of the multi-use (cycle/orv) system. We all know that it will be EXTREMELY difficult to acquire new trails for single user use as it is today. We will be lucky if we fix what we have today in our lifetimes with the equpment we have presently. I challenge anybody in the atv community to publically debate (since we are not encouraged to ideally meet with our 'brothers' outside the administrative level) the outdated need for ANY (besides connectors) single use motorized trails. You will instantly be chastised as not respecting or understanding what the cyclists have done for the trail system and the supposed God-given right of a cyclist to have 'X' amount of trail SYSTEMS (they won't be satisfied with one or two) to dodge trees on for eternity. I'd also be curious as to who in the room would go on record as willing to GIVE UP systems such as the Tomahawk Trail's 100 miles that are atv legal but 'cycle' maintained or convert cycle trails to multi-use trails for that matter. We did not build new roads for 'buggy's only' for the Amish when we busted out their old trails for modern dirt roads with specifications; we didn't kick them off of them either.

4) Nobody seems to want to quantify, with the technology we have today, how many trees and stumps would have to go, at what width, to even get a handle on the problems we face. Speaking up in regards to the previous three questions might get this process started.

Are prisoners still an option as they were years ago when the Little 'O' was created?

I really hope I'm not perceived as being a blowhard on this as I probably could've summed it up with the above about four or five posts ago!

Regards,

John Stears