[The Bottom Line]

"...Oh,yeah, because of sterotyping in my field of interest, I am now sometimes embarrased to admit to something that has been in my family for 3 generations. :(

I don't think you need to shoulder the burden all by yourself...I've been called every name in the book for asuggesting that we ALL be embarrased....

[The Bottom Line]

"...An interesting bit related to this was the numbers being extrapolated concerning public trail usage (again, data is relevant to Mich). The 1999 survey indicated that ~24% of ATV operators used them on public trails, the remaining did not (farm, ice fishing, whatever). Those numbers did not conform to the respondents with bikes - the number was much greater. Running the data they made available, it would not be off the wall to conclude that while ATV ownership dwarfs that of cycles, their usage of the public trail system is similar in numbers (total riders) but actual rider hours, broke down further in favor of cycles. To sum it up, yes, there are more ATVs, but there are equal or more cycles in terms of usage of the public trail system.

You guys have been working "overtime" trying to MASSAGE all this outdated data, haven't you? I'm going to ask you one question and, by god, it's an imoportant one...so listen up:

Why WAS IT....that when the DNR announced that they would be using all this outdated data from decades past; to form what was (last time) a 25 year future plan....that I was the ONLY person in that room full of motorcyclists who stood up and demanded that this data AT THE VERY LEAST be current?
The motorcyclists: "uhhhh, 'yeah'....we like these numbers you're using from the late 70's, 80's and 90's...and don't have a problem with 'em!" :rolleyes:

Sorry, but I didn't see any effort within any of these communities to 'raise funds for studies' or demand that no plan be brought forward until they were done PROPERLY(and when I "dared" suggest suggested same...I eas treated like DIRT :mad: ).
And I'm here to tell you right here and now... that those numbers were never a representable sample when they were brought forward then....and CERTAINLY aren't a representable sample of what EXISTS today.

Again, how STUPID do you think the rest of us actually are? :confused:

[The Bottom Line]

[QUOTE=2TrakR]"...Let's see here, and please correct me if I'm off-base.
You joined a cycle club and somebody in that organization told you they wanted to maintain trails at handlebar width. You didn't join in any trail maintenance to see if that was the case and took that one person's statement as the defacto standard. Instead of actually verifying that was the case and/or attempting to make a change to some other standard you quit that club...."

This statement regarding the motorcyclist's desire to maintain handlebar widths only (if they had it "their way" :rolleyes:); was made by your "God" of Michigan motorcycling.....do I have to investigate much further?
Your "God" has also made "off-the-record" (why, of course!) statements as to how much he dislked our "God" :rolleyes: of atving when this man had 'the chance' to be more involved in state issues(in other words, before he was effectively "kicked out" of having the chance to be a part of your regular pow-wows with the DNR)....how much more of a screwed up picture did BOTH of these guys have to paint for me?....and especially when our "God" told us that we could NOT work together with any motorcyclists beyond "a social level"!!!.

These two guys created this mess....please don't blame ME for (again) simply picking up the smell and stumbling into the crap. ;)

I promise to keep straightening out these facts at a later date. And unlike others who simply pick and choose their subjects while effectively verifying the rest of what I have said here to be true?....I will correct all fudging of the facts in the order that they were shoveled out. :thumbsup:

[2TrakR]

These two guys created this mess....please don't blame ME for (again) simply picking up the smell and stumbling into the crap.

Don't know who the other dude is you are referring to, one is probably Chapin and I'll check with him to see if the comments you are making are taken out of context or accurate as you state. I'd like to know who the other guy you refer to is.

[QUOTE=2TrakR]"...TBL -
I didn't jump up to reply to your previous post you as you indicated more time was needed to craft a reply. I must also admit that I ignored this and the previous thread regarding "quad bashing" as well until I was really "bored" over the holiday....."

Note the arrogance and 'feigned interest' here....it only gets worse....

Yes, but I'd say the arrogance is on your behalf. You bemoaned the fact that "cyclists" have ignored you until the you thought this thread on TT was almost over. I'm saying I personally didn't ignore you because of who you are, but that I didn't join in on this thread after your first post:
Because the topic is one that is usually associated with name calling and adolescent behavior and no real discussion will take place on the thread because of this; that TT has a large number of posters who fit this category. I did not indicate you were one of those type of posters.

"...Since I disagree with your positions and statements regarding "alleged" actions going on in the great State of Michigan...."

To them, everything is just 'hunky dory' and what should anybody have a problem with? (lol)

Quite the contrary. However I do believe our program is in much better shape than you allege.

"...I feel compelled to refute some of your claims with the real facts and perhaps be able to "enlighten you" with the information you seem to be after...."

We're not after any information....we just smelled the stench and followed our nose....all on our own!

So as with your previous club memberships you don't want to discuss anything, learn anything nor change your views or those of others, you simply want to bitch about things here?

"...Of course, I don't have all the answers nor am I personally involved in every action taken related to the CCC and the DNR. Your reference to Holton Horshoe... That system had several issues. One was that the USFS had designated it cycle only and ATVs were using it...."

Whoa there, partner! Who exactly had "issues" with this fact besides yourselves and the people you tried so hard to MAKE IT ONE! ATVs were allowed down those trails and you know it...please don't throw the word "designated" in.....thinking we all should bite on it.


You are so far off base with your premise, it's not funny. I know what the law is and have it to back my statements up. Do you want a link to the laws to reference them yourself of do you think I would create a fake Mich.gov website complete with fake compiled laws and rule books.
My statement about Holton Horseshoe was in reference to why any action was taken. When a new property owner in the area discovered that public trail crossed his property, it became an issue to him (or her) that they wanted taken care of.

"...We did not push for cycle only trails..."

and just what turnip truck was it that you saw us all fall off of?...let's get REAL here, my friend!

Hey, if you can prove otherwise, lets see it. I have the documents the CCC published indicating their position and what actions they wanted their members to take and none of it supports your statement.

"...at the same time changing the designation of that trail to 50" was never in one of the USFS's proposals....."

It was never THERE...because when in the heck has the US Forest Service ever ADVOCATED putting down multi-use trails...in the last 20 years?
"Well, uhhhhhh....they never "suggested" it...."
What 'planet' are you guys from?


Yes indeed which planet, I am from Earth, a planet you must only occasionally visit. The USFS advocates multi-use trail (ORV trail) and has plenty of it on the ground.

"....Could it have become 50" trail? Anything is possible and had there been a legitimate ATV presence (ie a club of some substance) it may have become "one of the options"...."

The only way any atv club would've got involved in that process was even ONE of the parties involved IN IT...would've sought out and welcomed atv leadership's input in same. If you're telling me this happened....oh "pray tell" share with us how the hand was extended forward and then "slapped away".(do you somehow think that we all have bad memories?).

You think Holton Horseshoe happened behind closed doors? Wrong. Public meetings, public documents. Heck, the docs are still on their website. Anyone could have been involved.

"....You are correct in that the CCC helped cause the USFS to spend some money (was it $50K? don't remember). We caused them to do that because they wanted to simply eliminate that trail system. To do something other than just close the trail required an analysis which cost money. So, yeah, in some way we did cause that to happen....."

You didn't even LISTEN to what I said earlier. This money was in reference to the "last" land grab you motorcyclists attempted in the Huron Forest. Get this...these guys show up at our quarterly orv advisory board meeting and VERY QUIETLY bring up an issue they have with the state of Michigan not spending $50,000 to fund an impact study that would create the largest new trail system in decades! s
The only problem the rest of the state had....THEY WERE THE ONLY ONES WHO WOULD EVER EXPERIENCE THE PLEASURE!
Again, you will not find a more arrogant bunch of enthusiasts than what we experience right here in Michigan. This little guy pretty much shows what these people expect you to do when they take the stage and I'm not exaggerating.

I do not know which new trail system you reference, nor what moneys are being referred to. Please explain.
[QUOTE=The Bottom Line]
"...Your statement about all trails originally being open to ATVs is only half true and very misleading. ORV Trails that are maintained to the 40" spec have always been open to vehicles capable of traversing that trail without leaving the trail (to get around a set of narrow trees) and without causing "environmental damage" which would include running over saplings/brush and related - which any 50" ATV would do while trying to navigate those trails. Know that a 40" trail is 40" at the handlebar and 24" on the ground. Trying to keep all four tires of a quad (or all three of my wife's three wheeler) within an 24" wide strip is pretty difficult in my opinion...."

Maybe this is part of the problem.....our leaders have NEVER given us that interpretation of the law....yet more so, it illustrates just how far you guys are willing to go (claiming "envorinmental damage" just like our enemies) TO DENY ACCESS TO OTHERS WHEN THEY HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO DO SO.

Our legislature has given us those laws. It's unfortunate you've not done your homework before making wholesale assumptions. As I originally said, I hope you enlighten you and will gladly point this data out to you for your own learning process. Just ask if you are truly interested.

"....In any case, the Cyclists had nothing to do with erecting barricades or other such items. This was all USFS policy and procedure....."

Give us a break! Again, How STUPID do you think we all are?

I'm starting to wonder about your personal allotment, but most others reading this thread are not stupid and understand that the agency charged with maintaining an area of public land has their own policies and procedures.

[2TrakR]

"....I can provide you with name and contact info of the USFS Baldwin Ranger District Recreation Planner (who oversees this stuff). I'm sure Kathy could explain it to you better than I...."

I'm sure she could!

So, I offer an objective third party, a true reliable source of information. One that can offer more information on a topic you dispute with me. Are you saying that you don't want to talk to her and verify that information?

"...As for one ATV club that shows resistance to a motorcycle club.. Easy enough. ATV Offroad Club of Michigan. I would not say resistance because the term implies them going against or fighting with a "cycle" club. Why would you promote infighting among motorized off-road recreation groups who do indeed share a common goal?...."

Hey, you just made enemies of these guys, not me. I thought they "occasionally" just allowed users to speak their mind (although I definitely wasn't one of them)....what did they do....not to every issue you guys sided on or just simply express an opinion contrary to yours?

Geez, as a member of their club, I wouldn't think I made any enemies. But I'm not sure how you think I made any enemies.

"...the specifics are that ATV OffRoad has opted not to work with the CCC to use their insurance for coverage of trail maintenance and events. Instead, they opted to get their own insurance and/or not participate in some functions...."

What "functions" were these guys supposed to be participating in? And do you mean to tell me that since they chose NOT to pay YOUR CLUB a FULL MEMBERSHIP FEE for each trail worker...just to get the insurance you carry....they arte somehow (in your words) "showing resistance" and "promoting infighting"???. What do you want from these guys....their first born?

I'm saying they opted to not pursue trail maintenance if it meant they HAD to have membership in the CCC. You asked for an example where an ATV club did not bow to the wishes of a cycle club. To me, that was an example. I have no qualms with their decision, other that I'd like to see them continue with trail maintenance, but completely understand their decision not to require dual membership of their members. I did not imply they were infighting, only providing an example contrary to what you said did not exist.

"....Yet again you also mentioned trail maintenance equipment and suggested that what is being used in the field is inferior. Please expand on your vision, I cannot discuss that which you do not describe...."

I haven't been able to even DISCUSS trail maintenance equipment; with the main reason being that your "AMA" buddy shouted me down at a state meeting with the insistence that "we don't discuss modern trail eqyipment because we've never found anything that would fit down a motorcycle trail..."
Well, by god, I guess that's the end of THAT conversation!!!

Dick is not here, you have to no reason to fear him. Please discuss trail maintenance/equipment with us. You say we don't utilized modern stuff, I want to know what we can do better. You've had the opportunity several times now, yet you've continued to sidestep the issue.

"....If I've not covered all of the "facts" you written about, please provide a synopsis for me. I'm obviously a bit slow...."

You're not slow one bit, Jeremy....you just ran into somebody who's been watching you guys closely for a long time and who knows exactly how you all operate.

Um, you did NOT provide the synopsis. Again, the ball is in your court, please provide a synopsis of the facts as you see them.


Originally Posted by 2TrakR
"...An interesting bit related to this was the numbers being extrapolated concerning public trail usage (again, data is relevant to Mich). The 1999 survey indicated that ~24% of ATV operators used them on public trails, the remaining did not (farm, ice fishing, whatever). Those numbers did not conform to the respondents with bikes - the number was much greater. Running the data they made available, it would not be off the wall to conclude that while ATV ownership dwarfs that of cycles, their usage of the public trail system is similar in numbers (total riders) but actual rider hours, broke down further in favor of cycles. To sum it up, yes, there are more ATVs, but there are equal or more cycles in terms of usage of the public trail system.


You guys have been working "overtime" trying to MASSAGE all this outdated data, haven't you? I'm going to ask you one question and, by god, it's an imoportant one...so listen up:

No, actually I just spent 20 minutes with the 99 study and compared that with the data I've been collecting on the trail system for the past year for our new mapbook. I've offered the data up that I'm basing my position on so you can refute. Do you want to, or do you want to acknowledge that much of your point is based on invalid information?

Why WAS IT....that when the DNR announced that they would be using all this outdated data from decades past; to form what was (last time) a 25 year future plan....that I was the ONLY person in that room full of motorcyclists who stood up and demanded that this data AT THE VERY LEAST be current?
The motorcyclists: "uhhhh, 'yeah'....we like these numbers you're using from the late 70's, 80's and 90's...and don't have a problem with 'em!"

Your question is why were you the only one who demanded the data be current? Guess you are the only one that disputes the data? Maybe 'cause part of the 04 ORV Plan update includes gathering new data. My data presented is the most recent, from just 5 years ago. I'm sure it will change with the 2004 data is released, I do not know how it will change.

Sorry, but I didn't see any effort within any of these communities to 'raise funds for studies' or demand that no plan be brought forward until they were done PROPERLYy. And i'm here to tell you right now that those numberts were never a representable sample when they were brought forward then....CERTAINLY aren't a representable sample of what EXISTS today.
[QUOTE=The Bottom Line]
So you disagree with the study's results and methodologies. This is consistent with your "just bitch about it" philosophy. Or am I wrong? Will you be commissioning your own study? Do you have suggestions on how the data would be more accurate and if so, have you presented this to Dr Nelson?

[justapitperson]

Just to clear things up, I do not have quads, I have horses. There are idiot horse owners too and they mess things up for other people. I am fortunate that I personally do not have to deal with public trails. My son does MX and that is why I like Thumper Talk. :thumbsup:

[Tubo]

Just to clear things up, I do not have quads, I have horses. There are idiot horse owners too and they mess things up for other people. I am fortunate that I personally do not have to deal with public trails. My son does MX and that is why I like Thumper Talk. :thumbsup:
You ever see what horses do to a nicely groomed run of single-track in the winter? Stay off of my trails!!!

[justapitperson]

O.K. see why I said I don't like to bring up the subject of horses! I just said I do not have anything to do with public trails! Bye... :rolleyes:

[TopWop]

2TRAK,
I mean no disrespect to your figures,however,those stats taken by Dr Nelson have very LITTLE meaning to me.I'll tell you WHY?

He clearly indicated in a earlier meeting this year that his survey was conducted with a random mailing of ONLY 1200 various ORV participants.Now take into accout that in 2003,it is estimated that we sold approx 189K ORV Stickers.This would indicate to me that less than 1% of the overall use of ORVs were even involved in his survey.You CANNOT get ANY type of accurate DATA based on such a rediculesly low count of ORV users.In my eyes,its just ANOTHER way to dry up the ORV fund that WE users are PAYING out of OUR pockets.

I could go on/on about the useless robbing that takes place with OUR user monies,but I trust you know where im coming from?

[ride_red]

Is it me or does every TBL post look like some conspiracy theory UnaBomber Manifesto? He even claims to have anthrax being sent to him. *** is that all about?

Hey, he's just like that one guy we all knew in high school. Just saying the opposite to pick a fight. Nothing backed up by facts. Can't get a long with anybody. Back him in a corner and he starts calling names.

The shame of it all is his rantings are going to turn off some folks from coming to Michigan to ride. It's a great place here for both ATVers and bikers both. We have scramble areas, we have awesome dunes, we have campgrounds that have trail access, we have trail spurs that go to food and gas, shucks---there is even a trail on an island you have to take a ferry to!

All I know is there are a HELL of a lot of volunteer man hours and volunteer money spent here maintaining access for both groups. Don't let TBL's personal agenda ruin the integrity of these people's efforts. RR.

[lewichris]

there are several ATV clubs around here who have cleared 100 miles of old grown in trails. They are members of pantra and when the snow comes they switch to the ATV's cause the bikes are too hard to ride in the snow. I guess it just depends on the area, the atv'ers here are great. I am one of them.

Chris

[lewichris]

One thing is for sure... the more people try to convince me of the merits of atvs the more i hate them.

Life is too short to hate, But i am sorry that so few have ruined your perception of the good ones that are fighting for riding areas like yourself.

[Tubo]

Life is too short to hate, But i am sorry that so few have ruined your perception of the good ones that are fighting for riding areas like yourself.
I'd say it's the many who have ruined it for the few good ones in my area.

[TopWop]

SpottedMarley,
Your smart asz comments?

Your about as useless as a pocket puss is to Richard Simmons :thumbsdn:

[2TrakR]

2TRAK,
I mean no disrespect to your figures,however,those stats taken by Dr Nelson have very LITTLE meaning to me.I'll tell you WHY?

Bill,

I can only base my position on the data I have available and the most recent of that is from 1999. I'm no statistics expert but their survey attempted to sample 4% of the User base and resulted in 2% (2400 out of 124,000). I can't say if that's good or bad - would the resulting data change significantly had they surveyed 50,000 people? Reading the comments given by respondents (appendix on the study) gives me the impression they would not have.
Now, just what is my position? That ATVs can access 86% of the trail system in Michigan (lower peninsula reference only). The DNR is not being strong armed by the CCC or AMA. That "The Bottom Line" (otherwise known as John) is off-base with his complaints. That MI needs more trails and the majority of those should be ATV trails, although some percentage should be cycle only and probably a small percentage at that. That I am not against ATVs (own 'em, use 'em, have for 20 years) and absolutely for working together to reach the common goal of having more and better trails. Oh yeah, and that the safety training for ATV & Bikes has gone south since the DNR took it over and needs changed.

I'd love to discuss the wasting of our money that you describe. Should we start with the proposal to eliminate signage from trees and move exclusively to carsonites? The DNR only wants to spend 2.3 million to do that. How about the safety training "matching dollars" that trainers no longer receive for training kids and that money instead goes to DNR budgets (it came from our sticker money, no?).

[2TrakR]

This statement regarding the motorcyclist's desire to maintain handlebar widths only (if they had it "their way" :rolleyes:); was made by your "God" of Michigan motorcycling.....do I have to investigate much further?


John,

I called the person who I think you referenced. He says there never, ever, even off the record, was a statement made to that effect. Not taken out of context, not misquoted, just simply was not said. Tell me who you refer to so I may be corrected, or I say you, sir, are a liar and that all you are touting must be lies and half truths because of it.

[SpottedMarley]

SpottedMarley,
Your smart asz comments?

Your about as useless as a pocket puss is to Richard Simmons :thumbsdn:

and you, sir quadsalot, are almost as interesting as a room full of stale farts. :lol:

yessiree bob .. childishness is quite elementary and every bit as thorough as the most intelligent of articulation when it comes to the task of making fun.. and i'm all about fun and when it comes to the topic of quadbashing, my friend.

PEE-YEW :eek:

[The Bottom Line]

[QUOTE=2TrakR]"...I'd like to know who the other guy you refer to is....
."

There is only one "God" in atving right now....and I seem to be the only one in this state willing to stand up at a public meeting and point out the fact that his "go-it-alone" efforts elsewhere are destroying the chances of any of us ever getting together on anything. I've been trying to stop this crap from snowballing for 5 years now and we are just now feeling the damage these guys have wrought with their 'prima donna' attitudes.

"....Quite the contrary. However I do believe our program is in much better shape than you allege...."

Your program is built around the pretense that everything is 'fine' as long as everybody agrees with not only what you want...but that nobody ever 'dares' muddy your hostage-like relationship with the DNR. It's that simple and you've worked that way for years. ;) If "God" doesn't approve of it; it's not only NOT happening...but he sure as heck isn't going to answer your questions in public or make an "on-the record" stsatement about it (which is the same crap we received from the atv "God"; who wouldn't even let you attend his meeting if he even "thought" you might bring up something that he had to come down on one side or the other on).

"...So as with your previous club memberships you don't want to discuss anything, learn anything nor change your views or those of others, you simply want to bitch about things here?...."

I tried to explain my relationships with these clubs not a few minutes earlier and had my comments erased when I submitted them (obviously not TT's fault)...I'm not explaining myself again (which I already DID in detail), but I will be glad to do so over the phone at any time.

"........You are so far off base with your premise, it's not funny. I know what the law is and have it to back my statements up. Do you want a link to the laws to reference them yourself of do you think I would create a fake Mich.gov website complete with fake compiled laws and rule books.
My statement about Holton Horseshoe was in reference to why any action was taken. When a new property owner in the area discovered that public trail crossed his property, it became an issue to him (or her) that they wanted taken care of....."

The issue had absolutely nothing to do with the private ownership part of it..... It was all about keeping the atver's access to a trail system and NOT erecting barricades to set some kind of precedence. If you can't explain why you think motorcyclists should have 100 MORE miles in the Huron Forest....please don't try to pass yourselves off as "fighting for the rest of us" on this project.

"...Hey, if you can prove otherwise, lets see it. I have the documents the CCC published indicating their position and what actions they wanted their members to take and none of it supports your statement...."

One minute you're saying that you nothing about the inner workings of some cycle club...the next you are offering to produce documents that "the rest of the world" has never seen (if there is another world beyond the cyclists newsletter and what doesn't make it to their website). We'd LOVE to see these documents about how you truly "did" fight for these trails to be multi-use in the spirit of what they were previously....BRING THEM ON!!!

"....Yes indeed which planet, I am from Earth, a planet you must only occasionally visit. The USFS advocates multi-use trail (ORV trail) and has plenty of it on the ground....."

The problem being that they evidently DON'T advocate the only type of trail we need to be building from now on; (they didn't BUILD IT)... one that truly reflects the demise of your machine's popularity, the need for MORE trails to accomodate the type(s) which replaced it....and a nod to the increased pressure ALL these machines are exerting on the limited amount of trails availiable to us.

"...You think Holton Horseshoe happened behind closed doors? Wrong. Public meetings, public documents. Heck, the docs are still on their website. Anyone could have been involved....."

I never implied (you see, this is how these guys operate ;) ) that anything was done behind closed doors. What I'm not going to let you get away with lying about; is the notion that you fought hard for those trails to be multi-use; that you had nothing to do with encouraging the USFS to install the first barricades we've ever even SEEN on these type trails...or that you encouraged atv leadership to get involved in the project in this spirit of cooperation that you want to make "the rest of us" believe you're all about. You guys are out to close these trails down to everybody but yourselves and you can't stand somebody finally standing up to call it for what it is....greed and selfishness (with LOTS of arrogance).

"...Our legislature has given us those laws. It's unfortunate you've not done your homework before making wholesale assumptions. As I originally said, I hope you enlighten you and will gladly point this data out to you for your own learning process. Just ask if you are truly interested....."

I don't have to ask what the law was before you guys attempted to set this precedent and then hide behind the greenies and their "environmental damage" crasp to justify it. It was legal to ride that trail before you guys made sure it was "not"....with the help of the USFS . It doesn't get any simpler than that.

"....I'm starting to wonder about your personal allotment, but most others reading this thread are not stupid and understand that the agency charged with maintaining an area of public land has their own policies and procedures....."

You can try and discredit me all you would like and allude to the level of my 'intelligence' in the same manner As I've claimed before....your club's arrogance is obvious enough that it distintly shows through in the defense of your arguments and simply affirms the long list of crap you've tried to pull that somebody has finally brought to light.

As I've mentioned before, it isn't the BALANCE of this community who is fighting the idea of working TOGETHER on building a multi-use trail system for EVERYBODY...it is those who believe that they are so "special" within the motorized community; that they, and they alone, have the inalienable right to ban access from the land WE all own (while still riding what everybody else rides....why of course! ;) ).

Grow up guys....your arrogant attitudes are not serving the next generation and will eventually taint a proud legacy that doesn't deserve where you are trying to take it. :(

[Tubo]

I've gotta know- If a post is more than about 2 paragraphs long, does anyone actually read it?

[TopWop]

Jeramey,
carsonites would cost more money,so I've been told?

Today,there are far to many grant sponsers that get trail maintenance monies that do not keep a trail within trail specs,but STILL get the funding handed their way.You could go down allmost any designated trail in the State of Michigan and find issues that dont meet trail maintenance specs.I rode Drummond Island last yr,and if you did'nt have a GPS,you were LOST![SOMEBODY gets paid to mark this trail?]Improper amount of confidence markers per mile,tree branches and twigs smacking you upside your helmet,improperly marked trails ect ect ect,just to name a few issues on our trails?

Me personally?I think our trail maintneance should be handed over to PRIVATE OUTSIDE sources that can be held accountable for the above shortcomings.I have spoken to a few LandScaping companies in the past that have expressed an interest in doing this.

The 4% user base that was surveyed in 1999?Im sorry,but im not the least bit impressed with ANY stats that only use 4% of the total amount of involvement on any giving Statistic?Those 4% 1999 stats are totally a waste of my time and the money they dried up taking them.I expressed my concern over this 1999 statistic at an ORV Board meeting,and the answer I was giving is,thats the best system they have to go by,right now.In my book,0+0,still = 0....I'll tell you what I think?I think if a REAL ORV user STAT was taken,you'll see that ATV use in Michigan FAR exceeds the use that DR Nelsons survey shows,and a stat like this might REALLY rattle the largest ORV club in the State of Mich..

And I do agree with John in respect that IF any NEW trails should be made,they should be made NO less than 50 inches.Cyclist can use ALL 3100 miles of exsisting trails if they choose to do so,and any new trails would also benefit their use.To build a cycle only trail system is wrong[right now] in my eyes,and if REAL USER ORV stats were ever compiled by this State,the cyclist would never be allowed another mile of CYCLE ONLY trails until wider trails were made to accompany the ever increasing amount of ATVers that also spend their monies to use our trail systems more/more EVERY year.I work sales for cycles AND ATVs,I know whats been selling!

This is 2005[pretty soon]and this State needs to wake up to more than just one user groups concerns.

The DNR?
We dont really want to go there right now.When I see you,we can discuss our plans to overcome their arrogance,or you can talk to Bill Chapin to get the heads up on the latest,Me,Dick,Bill,Paul M and Pat K just had a meeting this week.

Are you going to be at the ATVOFFROAD meeting this Sunday?

[SpottedMarley]

I've gotta know- If a post is more than about 2 paragraphs long, does anyone actually read it?


well i can't speak for everybody, but i can tell you i certainly don't.

unless i wrote it. :D

[The Bottom Line]

John,

I called the person who I think you referenced. He says there never, ever, even off the record, was a statement made to that effect. Not taken out of context, not misquoted, just simply was not said. Tell me who you refer to so I may be corrected, or I say you, sir, are a liar and that all you are touting must be lies and half truths because of it.

He never told ANYONE that "off-the record"....his club was only interested in maintaining trails the width of their handlebars.(?)

Well, I'm sorry to break news like this so close to Christmas in regards to mythical figures like Santa....but I already know of one other guy who heard the exact same thing from "God" and who surprised even me when he related it.

The sad part here is that you would certainly never so much as care if "God" forgot what he said... nor certainly ever "apoligize" for what you just accused me of being....the arrogance your group possesses :worthy: would never allow it :rolleyes: ).

This is exactly the reason why our two groups are not working together at this time...take all the reasons I've listed above and then throw in the fact that one guy will lie....and the other will swear to it. :naughty:

[SpottedMarley]

were you guys thesbians in highschool?

[2TrakR]

[QUOTE=2TrakR]"...I'd like to know who the other guy you refer to is....
."

There is only one "God" in atving right now....

Use names or stop. One or the other. I don't know who you are referring to, admittedly I have a vague idea, but not enough to pursue it. I asked for a name, you completely side stepped it.


"...So as with your previous club memberships you don't want to discuss anything, learn anything nor change your views or those of others, you simply want to bitch about things here?...."

I tried to explain my relationships with these clubs not a few minutes earlier and had my comments erased when I submitted them (obviously not TT's fault)...I'm not explaining myself again (which I already DID in detail), but I will be glad to do so over the phone at any time.


What? The computer ate your homework so now I have to assume what you said?
Admittedly I don't know what you could have said that was better than the way you described it previously.


"........You are so far off base with your premise, it's not funny. I know what the law is and have it to back my statements up. Do you want a link to the laws to reference them yourself or do you think I would create a fake Mich.gov website complete with fake compiled laws and rule books.
My statement about Holton Horseshoe was in reference to why any action was taken. When a new property owner in the area discovered that public trail crossed his property, it became an issue to him (or her) that they wanted taken care of....."

The issue had absolutely nothing to do with the private ownership part of it..... It was all about keeping the atver's access to a trail system and NOT erecting barricades to set some kind of precedence. If you can't explain why you think motorcyclists should have 100 MORE miles in the Huron Forest....please don't try to pass yourselves off as "fighting for the rest of us" on this project.


I must have misunderstood you originally. I thought you were accusing the CCC of manipulating the USFS to spend money for a study and subsequently modify a trail system so that ATVs could no longer access it. To that interpretation I said you were wrong, mis-informed and at the same time provided you a 3rd party to correct your perception. You choose to ignore all of that data and stick with your conspiracy theory. I can't argue with that.


"...Hey, if you can prove otherwise, lets see it. I have the documents the CCC published indicating their position and what actions they wanted their members to take and none of it supports your statement...."

One minute you're saying that you nothing about the inner workings of some cycle club...the next you are offering to produce documents that "the rest of the world" has never seen (if there is another world beyond the cyclists newsletter and what doesn't make it to their website). We'd LOVE to see these documents about how you truly "did" fight for these trails to be multi-use in the spirit of what they were previously....BRING THEM ON!!!


Yes indeedy. Those documents I refer to were published in the CCC's monthly publication "the Great Lakes TrailRider" which is sent to every active CCC member each month as well as being given out free of charge at many Powersports dealers. Nothing private or hidden about it. Do you want me to link to a copy of it?


"....Yes indeed which planet, I am from Earth, a planet you must only occasionally visit. The USFS advocates multi-use trail (ORV trail) and has plenty of it on the ground....."

The problem being that they evidently DON'T advocate the only type of trail we need to be building from now on; (they didn't BUILD IT)...


Um, last check the Mio Ranger District manages several (couple?) hundred miles of 40, 50 and 72 inch trails. Are you advocating the re-designation of a trail system to a different maintenance specification? Sounds more like you are upset that Holton HorseShoe didn't have a bulldozer run through it so you could run your RUV through it.


one that truly reflects the demise of your machine's popularity, the need for MORE trails to accomodate the type(s) which replaced it....and a nod to the increased pressure ALL these machines are exerting on the limited amount of trails availiable to us.


MY machines popularity? Which machine? My snowmobiles? My 4x4 full size pickups? My SUV (4x4 too)? My ATVs? Maybe my motorcycles?


"...You think Holton Horseshoe happened behind closed doors? Wrong. Public meetings, public documents. Heck, the docs are still on their website. Anyone could have been involved....."

I never implied (you see, this is how these guys operate ;) ) that anything was done behind closed doors. What I'm not going to let you get away with lying about; is the notion that you fought hard for those trails to be multi-use; that you had nothing to do with encouraging the USFS to install the first barricades we've ever even SEEN on these type trails...or that you encouraged atv leadership to get involved in the project in this spirit of cooperation that you want to make "the rest of us" believe you're all about. You guys are out to close these trails down to everybody but yourselves and you can't stand somebody finally standing up to call it for what it is....greed and selfishness (with LOTS of arrogance).


Ah, you accuse me of twisting your statements and then spin around and do the exact same thing to me.
I did not say the CCC fought for 50" trail with Holton Horseshoe. I did not say we encouraged ATV groups to be involved.
We did not fight for barricades. If your basing your opinion on the CCC having them installed because you've not seen barricades before, you've never EVER been to the Gladwin ORV trail system. There are 20 gates/berms and other items placed to keep US out of public land, all within 15 miles of my house and only the DNR wants 'em out there.
As for closing trail systems down to "just us cycle guys" tell me how we worked to open the Denton to St Helen ORV Route; how we worked to change the MCCCT from St Helen to the Meadows system so that it was no longer cycle only, but is now 50" ATV trail; how we are in the process of getting the same done from St Helen to Geels. Just how is that helping to get more stuff just to ourselves?



"...Our legislature has given us those laws. It's unfortunate you've not done your homework before making wholesale assumptions. As I originally said, I hope you enlighten you and will gladly point this data out to you for your own learning process. Just ask if you are truly interested....."

I don't have to ask what the law was before you guys attempted to set this precedent and then hide behind the greenies and their "environmental damage" crasp to justify it. It was legal to ride that trail before you guys made sure it was "not"....with the help of the USFS . It doesn't get any simpler than that.


Good one, you almost riled me on that. You ignore the law as it's currently written, take no time to research it and then accuse me of not only writing this law but also by working with anti-recreational groups. That's truly funny. Those same laws hinder all of our operation. It stops us from putting in new trails, from having event trail and from a whole list of things that we all should want to accomplish.

[2TrakR]

He never told ANYONE that "off-the record"....his club was only interested in maintaining trails the width of their handlebars.(?)

Well, I'm sorry to break news like this so close to Christmas in regards to mythical figures like Santa....but I already know of one other guy who heard the exact same thing from "God" and who surprised even me when he related it.


Your word against his then unless you have something else to contribute. I was not part of your conversation and so cannot say authoritatively what was or was not said. I can say that the CCC does maintain trails at 40, 50 and even 72 inches depending on the maintenance specification and that your statement goes against our core believes (which is in our constitution). Based on the last two items, I'm inclined to not believe your side of the story.

[SpottedMarley]

yeah, what he said.

[2TrakR]

Jeramey,
carsonites would cost more money,so I've been told?

Yup. And be a real pain to install. The number I heard from the ORV Program was either $23 or $32 per carsonite. Minimum 10 per mile, if you can see it from both directions, otherwise it's 20 per mile. In comparison, the orange triangles are <$1 each including nails. Acquisition of those carsonites and their install is what costs $2.3 mil.


Today,there are far to many grant sponsers that get trail maintenance monies that do not keep a trail within trail specs,but STILL get the funding handed their way.


So very true. I was able to ride 9 different trail systems just this fall and found one to be deplorable and the rest to be decent to very good. Those on the decent list still had spots that needed work. The one that was in the worse shape happened to be a CCC sponsor and I made my opinion of their "work" known to those that can do something about it with my recommendation to remove them (that sponsored group) from the program.

You & I've discussed this before, so you know I disagree with the privatization aspect for a number of reasons. We do need a better job of policing done with trail maintenance and I hope our new Recreation Techs can fulfill that need (so far it's looks better).


To build a cycle only trail system is wrong[right now] in my eyes


It's good to see your position matches mine as well as the CCCs.


if REAL USER ORV stats were ever compiled by this State

Do you see that happening? Will the current ORV Plan update address that to the level you see as necessary? If not, what would it take? I've always thought that putting a web cam with a motion sensor out on a trail system would be a decent way to compile usage data.


Are you going to be at the ATVOFFROAD meeting this Sunday?

Right now it still looks like a no. Several of us have been planning a post deer season ride for many months (prior to this meeting being put on the calendar) and I'm in need of a ride. Pulling the wife & daughter around on the saucer behind the quad on Thanksgiving was not enough of a fix ;-)
Ironically the trail we are planning to ride is Holton Horseshoe, John's current fixation. If the weather takes a turn for the deeper snow, I'll be at the meeting.

[2TrakR]

were you guys thesbians in highschool?
No, but I dated a lesbian in college. Does that count?

[The Bottom Line]

[QUOTE=2TrakR]"...Use names or stop. One or the other. I don't know who you are referring to, admittedly I have a vague idea, but not enough to pursue it. I asked for a name, you completely side stepped it...."

We don't have to use names as you know darn well who we are talking about. If yolu don't?....it is simply a great example of how little you have been paying attention to the group you claim you are falling all over yourselves to "work with". :rolleyes: ...quit playing games.

"...What? The computer ate your homework so now I have to assume what you said?
Admittedly I don't know what you could have said that was better than the way you described it previously...."

I don't ask anymore than to have my simple question(s) answered for the record and in public by the leaders who serve us....this has never been done by either your leaders or ours and I am just the first person to ever call them out of the shadows they have been operating in for their own benefit. it doesn't get any simpler than that. These guys feel that the publics business is akin to saving the free world as we know it...I have just caused them to be accountable for something simpler than that.

"...I must have misunderstood you originally. I thought you were accusing the CCC of manipulating the USFS to spend money for a study and subsequently modify a trail system so that ATVs could no longer access it. To that interpretation I said you were wrong, mis-informed and at the same time provided you a 3rd party to correct your perception. You choose to ignore all of that data and stick with your conspiracy theory. I can't argue with that....."

(lol) just what would you like us to 'ask' of the USFS? We know what happened! If you want us to confirm that you were in there fighting hard to turn that trail into multi-use...she'd have to tell us the truth! You have tried to give us the impression that you are all about multi-use trails and the fact that you won't address the Huron proposal used in this same example confirms that you will sneak around and try to pull off whatever you think your club can get away with. You guys proposed this land grab....we just caught you at it. ;)

"...Yes indeedy. Those documents I refer to were published in the CCC's monthly publication "the Great Lakes TrailRider" which is sent to every active CCC member each month as well as being given out free of charge at many Powersports dealers. Nothing private or hidden about it. Do you want me to link to a copy of it?..."

Link away my friend, just make sure you include the part where you were fighting to keep these trails open for multi-use from day one and how you fought any suggestion to do otherwise or enlisted the help of others to do so.

"....Um, last check the Mio Ranger District manages several (couple?) hundred miles of 40, 50 and 72 inch trails. Are you advocating the re-designation of a trail system to a different maintenance specification? Sounds more like you are upset that Holton HorseShoe didn't have a bulldozer run through it so you could run your RUV through it....."

You're missing the point here in that we don't CARE how many trails are currently multi-use.....what were trying to prevent is you guys making the false assumption that God gave you the right to ride motorcycles where others will never tread.

"...MY machines popularity? Which machine? My snowmobiles? My 4x4 full size pickups? My SUV (4x4 too)? My ATVs? Maybe my motorcycles?...."

You can again feign ignorance on the subject we are discussing all you would like....it just showcases your attempts to turn the attention away from the facts at hand.

I'll have to continue our discussion at another time; thanks for having it.

[tctrailrider]

[
I'll have to continue our discussion at another time; thanks for having it.

Hope your on your way to the doctor for a transfusion. That was one serious ass kicking. Thats the risk with trying to be an expert on the internet, the audience is so large. Just one well informed guy with a little time to type can quickly make you look stupid. :cry: 2trak :thumbsup: