[SpottedMarley]

No, but I dated a lesbian in college. Does that count?

Hell yeah it does!! That ALWAYS counts. :applause:

[2TrakR]

[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?


Sorry, I can not say it any other way. Use names or do not. No games, no inference. If your statement "the God of Motorcycling" is not Bill Chapin, than spell it out. Same for the ATV "GOD" as you say. I'm asking for information, I don't know what you gain by avoiding this aspect other than wiggle room.


"...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!


So regardless of what counter point I offer as well as the data to back it up, you insist that only your side of the story is the truth. You win, I can't argue with a brick wall. I've offered my position and what I base it on. Show me yours or consider your position null and void.

"...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.


I have to dig them up and so will take a couple hours. I'm sure it will be pointless as you'll change avenues yet again to point out some other fallacy or issue with the data. As I've already stated:

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.


Perhaps you choose to ignore this just as you've chosen to ignore, or at least not respond to, the other points I've made regarding new trails (by St Helen) or the numbers I presented on trail availability and usage patterns.



"....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.


Oh, so you don't care what is on the ground, but you do care where cycles can ride. You got me there. I went back through your posts and you do an excellent job of side stepping those exact statements. You want to ensure future trails are accessible by all motorized recreation and do not give a specific minimum width, although in the next sentence you speak of the wonders of a RUV as well as fire fighting equipment that one might assume refers to full size vehicles. But you are right, you never spell it out and the same is very true of the point I missed. That point being you don't care what you have access to now, it's not the point and is irrelevant. For all you care, it could all be designated as 40" cycle only trail.
And yup, I believe there is a justification for some cycle only trail, just as there is validity in the existence of horse only, foot only, snowmobile only and car only (ever hear of I-75?). Plus those that I missed.


"...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

It's good that ignorance is not something you need to feign. I asked which of my vehicles you refer to as I have many. Your statement was:


one that truly reflects the demise of your machine's popularity

You've painted me as an elitist cycle bigot and ignored the fact that my recreational interest is much more vast that you've considered.

You've bemoaned the fact that some have created non-motorized trails that only the able can access and use that to indicate that having a trail that only a cycle can access is just as wrong. Extend your argument - why can't you ride on horse only trails? Why not on public roads? Why not on bicycle trail?

Hey, you've still not expounded on the trail maintenance equipment you bashed me and my organizations about earlier. Any substance to your point or just another unfounded way to paint me in a bad light?

[2TrakR]

John,

You made reference to discussing this on the phone, but conveniently left off your #. I intended to, but did not, include mine on that last post. I'd prefer to keep this online as it gives me more time to research my points, but have been known to use the phone on occasion.

Jeramey Valley
989-879-5023
jvalley@mac.com
President, Great Lakes Dual Sporters
Mapping Coordinator, Cycle Conservation Club of Michigan
ATV OffRoad Club of Michigan
Michigan Snowmobile Association
American Motorcyclist Association
Blue Ribbon Coalition
(unlike John Sterns there are few clubs I've given up on)

[RichBaker]

2trakr, I have to give a big thanks to you for being here to refute this ....guy.... with the facts. I haven't seen Mr. TBL give a single verifiable quote statistic or fact yet, and he continues to rant uncontrollably nevertheless...
Thank you...

[SpottedMarley]

..and he continues to rant uncontrollably nevertheless...

isn't that what most of these people with no lives do on TT? :excuseme:

[TopWop]

JERAMEY--Keeping ORV user stats should not be a big deal.When a person purchases each ORV sticker for his/her ORV,WHY cant there be some simple ORV user survey to fill out every 3 yrs at the time of purchase and make this MANDITORY BEFORE the store clerk can issue you your stickers?No more wasting time and $$ with a useless 4% user stat.Mr Nelson may not like it,but thats our money and we users should have a say-so in this matter.Accurracy would FAR exceed a 4% user ratio.

I dont think the user groups are as far apart now as we were in the past.There is one thing that does concern me a little bit though?We[Bill Chapin,Dick Reeney,Paul M.and Pat K] had a discussion in Lansing this past Wednesday in regards to a conversation about what the President of MATVA is proposing to get changed in the ORV Guidebook.MATVA wants to REMOVE the definition of sub-group ATVs and make everything an ORV.I fully support this and I could see that Bill C did not and could'nt get a quality answer out of him except that he said it would also require changing the age guidlines on ATVs if something like this were passed.IMO,he is wrong here,if everything,including 4 WHEELERS were classified as ORVs,there would be no AGE restrictions on 4 wheeler use,because ORVs do not have age restrictions!I have no issue's with making the SAME restrictions for everyone,whether operating a 4 wheeler or a Cycle.I sensed that Bill did not support this and I cannot YET understand WHY,but I'll get it figured out soon.

[2TrakR]

"...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.



I have to dig them up and so will take a couple hours. I'm sure it will be pointless as you'll change avenues yet again to point out some other fallacy or issue with the data.


Found what I had here, might be more in the copies still floating in my RV.
Before I post a link, I must correct an earlier statement I made in regard to Holton Horseshoe. I had originally, and incorrectly, stated that:


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, next was the private property issues (that was the final straw) and also was the environmental issues including an endangered butterfly in the area as well as trail density.


I was wrong, the key issues as presented by the USFS were:
use of public roads, trail density, private trespass and endangered species. ATV use of the trail system was not listed nor mentioned other than in the plans of action from the USFS. My statement that it was one of the contributing factors was incorrect.

You've then gone out of your way to construe my statement:
"The CCC did indeed work hard with the USFS to see that the trail system was not closed and we ended up with as many trail miles as possible. We did not push for cycle only trails, at the same time changing the designation of that trail to 50" was never in one of the USFS's proposals."
into saying this process included something it didn't:

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.


So, here's a link to two PDF docs. The first is HoltonFile.pdf which has the first bit of information I could find in our mags about the issue, I think from mid-2002. The second file is HoltonFile2.pdf and it contains the CCC's position and a synopsis of the three alternatives the USFS was proposing. It also has a map of the system showing what was closed (can't see it in the scan, but it was half of the Holton loop) and the map also shows which part of the system is ORV sticker only and which requires a license plate. If you pull this map from the USFS web site you'll see that it was listed as Cycle only from the map's creation date of 1996. I don't know the history of the trail system prior to that.
http://homepage.mac.com/jvalley/.cv/jvalley/Public/holtonFile.PDF-binhex.hqx
http://homepage.mac.com/jvalley/.cv/jvalley/Public/holtonFile2.PDF-binhex.hqx
Or go to here and click on the files:
http://homepage.mac.com/jvalley
Here's where John will insert the conspiracy theory that the CCC has been planning this for the last 8 years. Or maybe he won't.

[2TrakR]

JERAMEY--Keeping ORV user stats should not be a big deal.When a person purchases each ORV sticker for his/her ORV,WHY cant there be some simple ORV user survey to fill out every 3 yrs at the time of purchase and make this MANDITORY BEFORE the store clerk can issue you your stickers?

Something along that line could work. I believe something similar was offered in the original 90's plan where the vehicle would have some type of registration or excemption to get a sticker. Seems like that would help to document what's out there and what isn't. Can't say the survey would yield more accurate data or a different picture, but I can't argue that the possibility exists that different results would appear. I'm skeptical though. The methodologies outlined in the 99 study regarding who they surveyed and how sound pretty fancy to me.

That reminds me of one of the other items - all the ice fishermen displeased with the fact they must have an ORV sticer to use their ATV on the ice. That number tends to skew the data being collected as to who is using the public trail system. Maybe moving to a trail pass (aka snowmobiles) would be a better solution?

If I get a chance, I'll run some more numbers. Latest data I've heard regarding ORV stickers has the 03 data at 175,000 and 04 catching that number already. That's 50,000 more stickers out there than in 1999 and only 50K as the stickers are annual (for you non-Mich people foolish enough to read this far). Yet, the sales data says we are selling 11,000 bikes each year and 31,000 ATVs. 42,000 sales for four years is closer to 170,000 total MORE potential sticker buyers yet we've only achieved 50,000 more. 120,000 are not being used off-road or on the ice. I'm interested in your conclusions on that data - remember it's nothing to do with the Doc's study, this is derived from DealerNews (sales) and DNR ORV Sticker sales.

[KTM265]

I understand the love of nice single track trails, tight ones that only a bike could fit down and I also see the point were we need to set aside our differences and hate towards quad owners. The number of registered quad owners do outnumber the bikes and those fees are used on all trails, not just bike or just quad...but all. There always seems to be tons of people saying how the quads are nothing but a bunch of red necks with their beer coolers...etc. I also ride a quad and I'm an active member on a quad forum...the following is from an e-mail that was sent to me in from that quad forum.

"When you get rolling with this..down here in Georgia my ATV Club...Georgia ATV Riders Association has done some great work with the forestry service..been written up in the NY Times and was on a TV Show on Turner South for the work we have done..now for the kewl part..we are starting a program down here in Georgia that is groundbreaking..we are giving helmets away while riding on the trails to kids and adults who are not wearing one..if they agree to wear it anytime they are on an ATV..we have several helmet mfgs working with us on this..and I think it would make a kewl show...we are putting our money where our mouth is..instead of just preaching about safe riding..we are doing something about it. Let me know if you are interested..I will call you and explain the concept and kick off date."

I don't know about the rest of you, but that sounds like a group of quads that are doing their part to get rid of all the bad riders...handing out helmets, working on the trails. I plan to load a bike up and join in that project. Anyone, bike or quad, care to join me on supporting them? I'll be more then happy to give you a contact person.

[TopWop]

JERAMEY,
thats a very interesting observation!WHY we are about 120K short with our sticker sales this yr?In Michigan,ATVs outsell cyclists allmost 3-1..Because of the versatility of ATVs,I think more/more farmers are using them every yr for purposes that may not involve trail use,however,until a much more accurate survey than the 4% user population that Dr Nelson did in 1999,I dont want to make any guestimations on who's use what,for what and where?

[ob1quixote]

I would like to know more about the quad/helmet project. Links? history? GA is a little far for me, but I wouldnt mind seeing something similar sloser to home.

Sounds like a good idea.

Robert :D

[KTM265]

Robert, I'll PM you with some contact information. I think it's a good program and I'm going to see about setting on up in my home area.

[2TrakR]

thats a very interesting observation!WHY we are about 120K short with our sticker sales this yr?In Michigan,ATVs outsell cyclists allmost 3-1..Because of the versatility of ATVs,I think more/more farmers are using them every yr for purposes that may not involve trail use

Bill, am I mis-reading your post (I think so)? We are short those numbers not just this year, but have been selling more vehicles for 4 years and have been lower on sticker numbers for all those years. I read your post as we are short _just_ this year.

As for use, I agree and I (I'm not implying you agree with this next part) also think that the numbers Dr Nelson came up with hold some water regarding percentage of use by type of vehicle. More specifically a significant percentage of the ATV sales are going to people who don't use 'em on the public trail system (they use the heck out of them, just not on the trails) where a very significant portion of the bikes are being used primarily on the trails. To me, that makes sense because what good is a bike if you don't trail ride it? You can ride MX and you can ride on your property. MX accounts for 1/3 of bike sales, but not all MX bikes are kept on the track. Bikes don't work too well to haul stuff around a farm and they really suck at plowing snow. ATVs however do excel at many things with trail riding be just one of many, hence it holds true that there's a ton being sold and not as many (in a percentage when being compared to bikes) being used on the trails. Not that there aren't a lot on the trails, the sticker sales numbers say we have 50,000 more vehicles out there.
Shifting gears back to reference the study from 99 - 24% of ATVs use the public trail system. If I take that percentage out of the 120K new ATVs we get 30,000 new ORV stickers, still shy of the 50K though but reasonable in that not all of the increase should be attributed to ATVs. Add in just 50% (99 study said it was a higher percentage) of the bike sales, or 20K, and we come up with the 50K needed to explain our increase in sticker sales. I have no doubts that the 24% is now higher as a percentage but not sure what it would be for ATVs.
So, I realize the study I reference means nothing to you but now you know why I think it's not that far off base. When I run the numbers, they generally add up. Of course, I do make mistakes and so welcome any corrections.

Working at a dealership, what's your view of ATV usage? What do people tell you they buy them for (and what do you see them actually do)?

You're not asking, but I'll offer it anyway: When I trail ride, I see a good mix of use. Holiday weekends it's probably more ATVs depending on which system I'm riding; week days it's 95% bikes, weekends it's a mix and can go either way depending on which system and where at in that system.

[TopWop]

Jeramey,
you are correct,I do not mean 120K short in ORV stickers just for this yr.Looking back,I can certainly understand how you could read it like that.I did a poor job of explaining myself in that post.

If I would have to GUESStimate,I would think that about 90% of those folks buying ATVs where I work at are for a combination of recreational and work purposes,the other 10% are work only.Approxiamately 80% of NATIONWIDE sales on ATVs are Utility type quads.

I've been riding 3-4 wheelers since 1983 and ATV use in the last 5yrs on the trails I ride has increased drastically vs the cycles I see on the trail,and that number increases every yr.I would have to agree with you that it appears there are more cycles using the trails most of the time during the week though.

Im glad you asked though?Im riding St Helan this coming Sunday and because of your thought,im going to count the ATVs and my riding partner Brian can keep track of the cycles we see during the day.I know it wont really mean anything,but it'll be fun keeping track of something that is creating a big interest in our conversations.

[The Bottom Line]

[QUOTE=2TrakR]"....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....."

In keeping with my habit of simply answering each and every question put to me in the order in which it was asked (something that my friends in the motorcycling community I'm not sure appreciate).....I'll redo my "2nd" :rolleyes: explanation of why I quit the clubs I did; as attacking my character seems easier than disputing the facts presented.
You've got to remember something here, folks...and that is that these people have NEVER had anyone so much as even 'question' their control of the off-road scene here in Michigan or even so much as "dare" demand to know what they are doing on a daily basis in regards to our future!.
And this has been the case since '68! (again, pure ARROGANCE makes even good folks forget where they came from and where they should be going).

And they darn sure aren't going to sit back and watch their influence inevitably wane now....nor certainly without calling me every name in the book; making every attempt possible to discredit my character....or even worse! ;).

I'll start my story (again) tomorrow....I just erased half of it (again) when the phone rang! :eek: :smashpc: (lol).
Note: My responses might not be current and take longer than most; yet I'm hoping that the manner in which I take on each question asked of me is in some contrast to all the questions I've asked earlier in this thread that have been ignored (I've found that after 5 years of digging up this mess...the tough ones usually end up that way ;) ). I promise to get to them all in due time.

[2TrakR]

For those not interested in a re-cap, please skip the next two posts from me. I've dug through the entire thread and copy/pasted each question John posed that supposedly was not answered and in doing so answered them. He also claims that I've called him every name in the book. I do this for my own reference as well, to be sure I've not missed something.

John,

While I appreciate your exceptional ability to not only side-step direct questions, such as the one I've posed repeatedly on trail maintenance equipment, you simultaneously redirect the topic away from the answers I've posted and charge me with name calling.

Here's the name calling bit.

So, let's see what you've called me (me being a cyclist):

a generation of riders that is frankly "embarrasing" at best.
how cocky the cyclists have been
The AMA and their cronies
arrogant bastard's
selfish mantra of these people
their elitist attitudes
selfish arrogance on a cyclists part
arrogant national organization or membership
groups like the AMA and their hateful membership
arrogant motorcycle groups (and their cronies)
arrogant pricks
arrogant bunch of enthusiasts
'prima donna' attitudes
your club's arrogance is obvious
Grow up guys....your arrogant attitudes

Here's what I've called you:


the arrogance is on your behalf
I am from Earth, a planet you must only occasionally visit
I say you, sir, are a liar
It's good that ignorance is not something you need to feign.


I'm not upset by the name calling you've done, but must say I think the one complaining of name calling is truly the one that's been doing the most of it.

[2TrakR]

I've repeatedly asked you to list the questions you say I've (or anyone) has not answered. As you are unable to relist your own questions, I've gone back through your posts on this thread and list them below. They are listed in chronological order and numbered. I've posted my response below each item.


1. Where are these millions of atv enthusiasts who outnumber everything in the woods....besides in red-headed step-child groups like the ATVA?

They are not all in the woods but most are out having fun and not interested in being involved in the political side of the sport.

2. Does the fact that this sport can't even field its own national organization...TELL YOU ANYTHING about the riders in it?

No, because there is a national organization (several, I think).

3. Originally Posted by KTM265 -> "If we team up together as off-road riders...we have a much bigger voice and voting power."
TBL -> "How can you argue with that?"

I don't argue with that, I agree with it.

4. (when's the last time you saw the AMA go all out on the helmet issue?) or self-policing our own (how many groups are lock-step with law enforcement and encouraging the type of stiff penalties that keep idiots off the trail for good?)

I've only seen the AMA go after the helmet issue by trying to remove it from law for street riding cyclists, with which I disagree. I know of no groups, including snowmobilers, who are in a tight enforcement relationship with LEOs.

5. The AMA and their cronies are so entrenched into our relationship with the DNR that a recent proposal to actually CLOSE DOWN portions of the system is now going through at whose request?

I think it was the ORV Plan Update study that requested it but it has not been implemented.

6. The new (and old) side-by-sides are, without a doubt, the most exciting thing to hit the off-road world in years. Why?

All in perception, your perception, because they are not the most exciting thing to hit.

7. A quick question: When the Amish built many of our roads in Northern Indiana (somewhat similiar to what the motorcyclists did for our trails here in Michigan)....did we kick them off the roads or allow them to keep these for themselves when the opportunity for a greater good presented itself?

I am not familiar with roads in Indiana or Amish usage patterns although the Amish road usage here in Michigan where I travel through is regulated.

8. Does anybody believe that just because my Rhino does a FAR greater service to the ENTIRE off-roading community and potentially the general public at large...that I should start demanding (as the motorcyclists do)...that I should have MY OWN TRAILS because "that's the way I like to ride them"??

You have your own trails, so I do believe you should have your own, as they are called roads, ORV Routes and scrambles areas.

9. Why shouldn't the atvers with their HUGE purchased base that dwarfs all others....demand that we BOTH stay of of "their" trails because they like to rode a certain way also???

They should demand that only vehicles capable of traveling down their trail without physically altering the basic foundation of same trail be allowed to use it.

10. Do the motorcyclists think we are all stupid enough to just accept this garbage as fact?

No.

11. Is the fact that 90% of all the close call head-on collisions I've ever had were with motorcyclists going balls out around the bends (not to say that quads aren't just as bad)....some kind of freak occurence?

Yes.

12. And if speed IS such a problem......why don't you see the AMA or ATVA advertising their support of increased fines and heavy enforcement (let alone riding area safety....and oh please would somebody challenge me on this one) before you even send your membership money in? How about an article in their newsletter about how they were instrumental in helping fine wayward riders or even impounding their machines?

Membership is most often gained by promoting positive aspects of a given subject, so advertising negative aspects like speeding tickets would be counterproductive in increasing membership.
Vigilante actions are generally frowned upon and is best left to law enforcement.

13. Show some kid a fellow rider being berated by others on the trail, or a national organization that goes after huge riding areas where safety is an afterthough or show hin peope that aren't riding anymore because their rig has been impounded.....do you somehow think that this not only doesn't send a message but maybe even affects the quality of our overall ridership for generations to come?

I think that lack of a positive image including proper role models and etiquette are essential to our future and current riders.

14. I mean, c'mon guys and gals....with that kind of attitude and a good look at the title of this thread.....why would you believe that "the rest of us" (you know, the fellow riders who are extending their hand forward in the spirit of cooperation) would look at you in any other light than the one you are shedding upon yourselves?

I would not believe that.

15. I am just going to have to disagree, my friend; as the only "room" groups like the AMA and their hateful membership are creating?

Can't figure the actual question out, maybe I shouldn't have picked this one as it was just a rhetorical item.

16. If everybody else in the off-road community worked together with you to build these "low-impact" trails you seek...RIGHT NEXT TO OUR "SUPERHIGHWAYS" FOR THIS DODGE-THE-TREE "THRILL" YOU SEEK ....would this finally shut down your propoganda machine in regards to getting what you think is your birthright?

If I had a propaganda machine, this would not stop it.

17. If you don't have the kahunas to preach "guidance" here because you're afraid of membership money decreasing.....where in the heck do you start?

I'm not afraid of membership money decreasing.

18. Why should there be ANY resistance....AND NAME ME ONE ATV CLUB IN THIS COUNTRY WHERE THERE IS RESISTANCE TO MOTORCYCLISTS!

I did in detail. OffRoad Club of Michigan example (dig it up yourself).

19. How more blatant does your group have to be when you start trying to set precedent on another group's access to the land we all own?

If the precedent were not already set, you would need to be more blatant.

20. Who exactly had "issues" with this fact besides yourselves and the people you tried so hard to MAKE IT ONE!

Private Property owners, plus the USFS. The CCC did not.

21. You're acting like there were wholesale 'access' issues with this piece of land... BEFORE they even discovered the property rights issue! and you somehow think that the rtest of us are going to believe your next statement?

Yes, they will believe for the truth shall set you free.

22. and just what turnip truck was it that you saw us all fall off of?

I saw no one fall of said turnip truck.

23. 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?

As previously stated, the USFS does advocate multi-use trails.

24. 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?).

I think you have a bad memory if your statement alludes to the process being a closed one requiring invitations to join in it. It was a public process open to the public.

25. Again, How STUPID do you think we all are?

I don't think we are all that stupid.

26. 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?

None of the above nor were any issues of this sort an occurrence.

27. 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?

Trail maintenance.
No.
Second born.

28. You guys have been working "overtime" trying to MASSAGE all this outdated data, haven't you?

Yes, be nice if you put the time in on the data as well.

29. 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?

You were the only one to think the data was not current or it was not of concern to everyone else.

29. 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?

Yes.

30. how much more of a screwed up picture did BOTH of these guys have to paint for me?

I'm no artist and have not seen your picture.

31. If you can't explain why you think motorcyclists should have 100 MORE miles in the Huron Forest....

I can explain it, we should have 300 more miles of trail in the Huron forest and equal numbers in the other forests. We should also have an additional 3000 miles of ORV trail in each of those same forests.

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

Regardless of what mode the record was in, the statement itself was never made.

[ride_red]

TBL wrote:
these people have NEVER had anyone so much as even 'question' their control of the off-road scene here in Michigan ------And this has been the case since '68!

You mean to tell me you had problems with the CCC giving total access to quads back in '68------years before there were quads? RR.

[SpottedMarley]

the thing i find most interesting about this thread is that it exists even though only 2 people are reading it. seems to me like this could be done via PM's to each other. yapping for the sake of yapping.

ok, you caught me.. i lied

i don't find anything about this thread interesting. :D

[KTM265]

SM, I think you and I actually agree on something... They both are writing books on this thread. I see there is an attempt to sum everything up... Could one of you give us the rundown on what each of you stand for on this thread...short format, my eyes are hurting from reading through all of this. I think the 2 of you have lost 99% of the readers, it is interesting though.

[SpottedMarley]

SM, I think you and I actually agree on something...

damnit! and i was on such a roll before! :mad:

[yzman400]

I think the 2 of you have lost 99% of the readers

Im still checking in on this soap opera saga for what its worth. I read thru the entire thing Sat night. What a waist of an evening.

[SpottedMarley]

I read thru the entire thing Sat night. What a waist of an evening.

YOU, my friend.. are in need of an exciting new sexual partner. :D

[KTM265]

damnit! and i was on such a roll before! :mad:


I know I how you wanted to :smashpc: that computer... :p

[vetplus40]

2 sides of the same coin.
From the mx side of it, quads power slide through turns and sling all of the loose dirt off of the track. After a few quad motos, the tracks get as slick as a non stick pan. The other side of the equation is that a quad riders entree fee spends just like mine does. Their money helps the tracks stay in business, so I can have place to ride.

[yzman400]

YOU, my friend.. are in need of an exciting new sexual partner. :D

Amen Brother........Amen! :thumbsup:

[The Bottom Line]

[QUOTE=2TrakR]"...For those not interested in a re-cap, please skip the next two posts from me...."

Sorry pal, some of the worst garbage you've been trying to spread in this thread I haven't even responded to yet (believe it or not, these things take time when you've got this many misconceptions being spread around)..

"...I've dug through the entire thread and copy/pasted each question John posed that supposedly was not answered and in doing so answered them....."

If you claim to have answered all my questions....then I'm assuming that the fact that you have wholesale avoided ANY AND ALL discussion regarding your group's attempted 100 mile single-track LAND GRAB in the Huron National Forest.....is a subject that you all simply DON'T want to talk about! (we'll throw that little incident in with your leader's twice-witnessed statement regarding "if it were up to us" and handlebar maintenance widths ;) ).
I guess you guys truly ARE all about working "together" :rolleyes: on multi-use trails.....it's just up to the "rest of us" in this community to "look the other way" .....each and every time you try to get away with something! :excuseme: :thumbsup:

"...He also claims that I've called him every name in the book. I do this for my own reference as well, to be sure I've not missed something....."

If you could read as well as you balance on two wheels.....my experience in being called every name in the book; comes from people within your own organization that have witnessed this first-hand; not yourself. You guys might not say much to the "lowly" general public when they come calling to Lansing with their concerns....but you sure as heck have plenty to say amongst yourselves when the "peons" are now longer staring you in the face. ;) . You send people into our organizations to keep an eye on things....we've had people for years in yours; who while very much enjoying the camaradirie...just plain HATE much of the arrogance. :( :D (the right and wrong of these issues is very plain and decent people full well recognize the future pressures we face on our system as a whole).

"...While I appreciate your exceptional ability to not only side-step direct questions, such as the one I've posed repeatedly on trail maintenance equipment....."

There has been no side-stepping whatsoever. I've related my experiences in simply trying to bring the issue FORWARD....and you've elected to simply ignore the arrogant re-buffs I've experienced like they either "didn't" :rolleyes: happen and/or were of NO significance!
Do you want to talk about maintenance equipment?
Then FIRST allow discussion to procede in regards to just what your group is doing right now in regards to keeping the volunteer maintenance program "afloat"... for the sake of what DNR field officers told me many years ago:
...."this "machete-only" money not only funds trail work; but causes those who derive their income from using outdated methods...to make certain that modern equipment never puts them out of a job when (inevitably) these same funds get diverted to those modern machines!"
Again, JUST HOW STUPID DO YOU THINK "THE REST OF US" ACTUALLY ARE OUT HERE?!?! (lol!) :rolleyes:

"....you simultaneously redirect the topic away from the answers I've posted and charge me with name calling....."

Read the above again, my friend...we've known how your group (not YOU) has been operating for years now.
It's just RECENTLY that you all decided to get a little 'bolder' by working to put up barriers and sneakedly propose these kind of land grabs to the DNR (who should've shot it down the second it came out of your mouths and didn't bither to tell you and us exactly why..."money" having nothing to do with it :naughty: ).

O.K.! :rolleyes: ......I guess it's back to correcting what tried to be passed off as "factual" in days gone by (this may take a while; yet I think it is the only honorable manner in which the truth will finally get told.....which is what this thread is truly all about.


Again, we CAN all get along....you just have to get all groups believing that their right to access our land.....shouldn't trump all others. ;)

[ob1quixote]

"you just have to get all groups believing that their right to access our land.....shouldn't trump all others."

You say this while maintaining the position that ATVs should access ALL trails.
My local trails were a 50/50 split, single track-dual track, until the single track was trumped by the ATVers.

I guess single track riders should be forced to buy their own land and run single track trails. Funny, I have heard that same statement from Eco-Nazis, except you substitute the word "OHV" for "single track".

This thread has evolved into a discussion of local trail politics, so I will leave it to those who know the particular locality and situation.

But, T.B.L., I must say that its too bad you're not "Blackballed" here too. No TTers, I'm not saying he should be eliminated from TT. "Blackballed" is a screen name he uses on ATV boards, where believe it or not, he is loved about as much as he is here. T.B.L./Blackballed is not representative of the opinions of those boards, or the members. The members actually read like pretty responsible folks that I wouldnt mind riding/working/socializing with. And being an ATV rider as well as a cycle rider, I might just stop in on those boards to say hello. I have no problems with any rider, regardless of what they ride, as long as they are responsible riders

T.B.L./Blackballed is an extremist to mainstream ATVers, just as EarthFirst is to nature lovers. Check it out for yourself, TBL/BB aint no poster child!

Robert :D

[ride_red]

"Blackballed" is a screen name he uses on ATV boards

Geeze, I didn't know that. Thanks for bringing that to our attention. Looks like he's found another place to pitch a bitch.

I'd think that someone who registers as "Blackballed" has a chip on his shoulder before making his first post.

Like I said, all his stuff reads like some conspiracy theory mantra. Bet he keeps Reynolds Wrap in business buying aluminum foil for making hats out of. RR.

[yzman400]

Do you want to talk about maintenance equipment?
Then FIRST allow discussion to procede in regards to just what your group is doing right now in regards to keeping the volunteer maintenance program "afloat"... for the sake of what DNR field officers told me many years ago:
...."this "machete-only" money not only funds trail work; but causes those who derive their income from using outdated methods...to make certain that modern equipment never puts them out of a job when (inevitably) these same funds get diverted to those modern machines!"

Ok I have kept quiet long enough.

I have been reading this entire thing taking it in from both sides.

Your take on this "Modern trail maintenance equipment" interests me. Just WHAT IS THIS EQUIPMENT You seem to keep dodging this question.

I am one of the people out there in the woods doing this maintenance. I am a volunteer not a contractor. I DO NOT GET PAID FOR THE WORK I DO. Nor do I ask to. I do what I do cause I want to put something back into the trail system that I get so much enjoyment out of.

I don't think you know what this modern equipment you talk about is. I think you are using it as a catch phrase. I am out there in the woods with my machete, folding saw stuffed in my boot, chainsaw in a backpack on my back. We have quads out there carrying chainsaws, weed whackers. We have chase trucks out there with chain saws, signs and sign posts. What is there that is better than what we are currently using. Cause believe me if there is an easier way I would like to hear about it. Trail maintenance is a lot of work. Work which we usually don't get nearly enough help to get done. More than once there have only been like 2-3 of us out in the woods clearing out 35+ miles of single track and wide track. Hear that..."WIDE TRACK". I, a CCC member am out there clearing out trail that is wider than my handlebars. Why am i doing this, because that is what we are supposed to be doing as mandated by the CCC and DNR.

As for this modern machine you speak of I have yet to see this Magical Cat in the Hat wonder cleaning machine that will clear the entire trail with its computerized tree limb plucking arms and all seeing laser sighting system. All the while I sit in my climate controlled cab and drink a soda. Sorry to burst your bubble but it don't exist.

You speak off maintenance going to outside contractors. While some is being done on the outside, I am of the opinion that as long as there is volunteers out there willing to do this trail work that it will remain in there hands. The state is cheep like any government agency. They give there money to the lowest bidder. Who is cheaper than a volunteer? The only money I see is reimbursing me for my gas to drive out there. And most of the time it doesn't even cover that. So I am shouldering some of the cost out of my own pocket. I am bringing my own chainsaw, machete, folding saw into the woods. If my saw breaks guess who pays for it??? ME! Outta my pocket.



You speak of "multi-use trail being needed. You talk about us motorcyclists being able to access trail via single track that you cant. Well from what I am reading here you would like all trail to be 2-track width, eliminating all single track. Sounds like you are saying that we as motorcyclist's cant have trail that is tailored to our riding styles and likes. Sounds a little selfish to me. I can tell you that if it comes down to me having to ride 2-tracks all day long, you wont see me and a lot off the 2-wheeled off road comunity in the woods anymore. That will really break your heart wont it.

How about mountain bikers/hikers. They are out there enjoying the woods also. They are seeing parts of the woods that you/we will never see on our motorized viechle of choice. What about them. You gonna take over there trails also. Make them wide enough to drive my wifes Jeep down. Cause I guarantee that you will stirr up a hornets nest if you try to invade there trails. Pedal bikers can not and will not ride down sandy trail that we as motorized enthusiasts can traverse with ease. They need a hard packed trail base to ride on. One that is not provised by ridding a quad or motorcycle down it.

I heard mention of how the CCC and AMA have the DNR in there back pocket. It is my firm opinion that this is FAR FROM THE TRUTH. I have to believe that if the DNR had its way we would be banned from the woods forever, bikes, quads, 4x4's, horses, mtn bikers, hikers, the lot of us. Its because of years, no decades of diligent work by groups like the the CCC, that we have the working relationship with the DNR that they have.


Now as for Horseshoe. You talk about how it was never an option to make it ATV accessable. Well let me ask you this. If you as an atv enthusiast had a trail, that was completely dedicated to you (atv) and no other motorized viechle was allowed on it. Would you push to make it a multi use trail. Would you go out of your way to find these other users, you know the ones, the ones that never speak up at public meetings or even show up.

Horseshoe has always been listed as a motorcycle only trail. Don't even try to tell me differant because its true weather you want to believe it or not. The reasons that 2track listed for closing it and restructuring it are also true. There is no hidden agenda there. Everything about that trail was done out in the open for all to see. I have a large environmental study and trail assessment sitting at home all about it. How did I get this??? I asked for it. I got on line and started asking questions about who was in charge of this project until I got ahold of Kathy the lady in charge of it. I asked her a few questions and she was more than happy to talk to me.


Before you get on me about being a quad bashing 2-wheeled enthusiast let me just tell you that just aint true. I have had quads in the past and loved them. I know own bikes but that doesn't mean that I don't still enjoy the occasional ride on a friends quad. I have an 8 yr old son that also rides bikes with me. He is the light of my life. I get so much pleasure out of ridding in the woods with him. I am a member of the AMA, CCC, and West Michigan Trail Riders. I am involved with these clubs as much as my work/family schedule will allow.

If anyone is against anything I think it is TBL that is against bikes and would have us all baned if it was up to him. Just because you may not understand what it is about dirtbiking that we like doesn't mean that we all are all freaks for liking to dodge trees. To each his own.

There is lots of trail in Michigan. Because of the possibility of a dirtbike being able to ride on the street with street legal bikes, we are able to connect large sections of trail that a quad will NEVER be able to do. Why cant trails be made to do this you may say. Look at a map and see were the state land is layed out. There is only so much of it. And before you tell me that "well, we could just use this section over here" try asking the DNR that. You will be up against years of environmental study's to get it done. The DNR is less than helpfull when asking for new trail. Just my oppinion.

Yes we do need to work together. I don't deny this.

Anyways I have waisted enough time here at work typing this up. I got to get something done.