Michigan Trails - Brainstorming Part II

[TopWop]

Oh No,
this higher sticker price would give the cyclist their OWN single track trails AND use of the REST of the ORV trials as well..The biggest advantage here would be that the cyclist can finally enjoy their own exclusive single track trail without the interuption of other ORV users--OR they could choose to enjoy the rest of the ORV designated trailways with the OTHER users?Whichever way the cyclist goes,they MUST come up with the extra 5 bucks to fund this priviledge though with the purchase of their own special ORV sticker.

ALL ORV cyclist would muster up the extra 5 bucks more,no matter what trail you decide to ride.

 

[morgan]

would give the cyclist their OWN single track trails AND use of the REST of the ORV trials as well..

Nothing would change on the ground----same as things are/should be right now. Except hopefully this would help more to keep unauthorized vehicles from riding on and destroying 40" (bike single track) trail. I'd pay the extra to ensure things stay narrow out there---as opposed to complaining about quads tearing up our bike trails then not putting my money where my mouth is.

The additional funds could also help to procure/maintain more 40" trail.

And as said before the two sticker system would have the byproduct of providing statistics on separate ATV and cycle numbers.

muster up the extra 5 bucks more

Looking at this again I would think 5 bucks would be on the high end of things. Maybe a couple bucks less would make it go over better? M.

 

[morgan]

PAY EXTRA.... NO WAY!!! New out houses and picnic tables are a much better idea.

Just trying to brainstorm a few ideas here so ultimately we don't end up with just out houses and picnic tables----and no trails to ride. M.

 

[TopWop]

5 bucks might be a little to high,except if you wanted additional single track trails constructed?

The real answer for most users would be to re-open the L.P to ORV use and let you guys keep your single track too,but I dont see that[re-open LP] happening anytime too soon,if at all?..And thats a real shame.My in-laws live in Marion Mich,not to far[20-25 miles?] from either the Leota or Evart trails..Prior to the 1999 take away of the L.P,we could ride 100s of forest road miles in a single week end in this area on our quads..Today,I can legally access these SAME forest roads with my SOS Dodge PU,but dont let me be seen on a quad?The DNR said it was errosion and indiscriminate use of ORVs that led to this closer,but even today,[allmost 15yrs later] when I ride my Dodge on these same forest roads,there is NOTHING differant about them except less tree's from logging and a few more severe rutts from the same loggers.Its such a WASTE of the beauty that our forests have to offer us.

 

[bbarel]

Prior to the 1999 take away of the L.P,we could ride 100s of forest road miles in a single week end in this area on our quads...Its such a WASTE of the beauty that our forests have to offer us.

Yup. Truly sad. I don't get it either. No doubt trails would be in much better shape if the forest roads were not closed. No doubt most quads would happilly ride the forest roads instead of cramming onto the trails. I think the closure actually happened way back in 1990. I would like nothing more than for it to be reversed.

 

[2TrakR]

Let's see if I can put the history together as I've grown to understand it regarding forest roads. Note a forest road is any pathway that you can get an unassisted Public Act 300 vehicle through (ie get a full size 2wd car through). This road is not part of the county or state road system; it's difficult to discern between such roads in some areas although county's are supposed to have stop signs and road names (or seasonal road signs) on their roads. Generally speaking the road must be greater than 50" since it would be a "trail" if it were less than that.

On to my rambling..

Back in the lates 70's they came up with an ORV plan. Part of that plan was to put 1500 miles of single track on the ground, mark it, certify it and then go to closed unless posted open. This meant we would have 1500 miles of single track plus all of the forest roads, which sounds like a decent deal, albeit "not closed" would be even better for some of us (some of us have too much now). Keep in mind this is just for the ORV population in the late 70's, four wheelers weren't even in the picture then.

A good 10 years later a higher up mucky muck (DNR, I believe) noticed that the plan was still not implemented and lit the fire under somebody's tush.
They then started marking trail. This irked some clubs 'cause their event trail was the only trail available for (whomever, DNR most likely) to mark in for designated trail. It was a rush job in some respects but a huge job to begin with and when that's taken into account, it was handled pretty decently. Some of that lost event trail still causes unrest between the CCC and one or more clubs (why, not sure, guess the CCC was an easy to blame target at the time). Back to the topic. It took a couple years, but they marked and certified (as in "yeah, I rode it and there were x miles of marked trail") the required 1500 miles.

I don't recall off hand what the ORV Route status was at the time nor how maintenance specs fall into this along the way. Routes were supposed to be of value, making connections & going places but they frequently had to use county roads. This was OK until the counties found out they could be sued because of ORV travel on their roads & naturally the counties opted not to have Routes use their roads. Legislation was passed several years later that gives them tort immunity (think that's the correct term) for allowing ORV travel on their roads, similar to snowmobiles being allowed, but they have not gone back to "reconnect" the routes.

Back to the ORV Plan & stuff. They had the miles down, then they needed legislation & funding for education, maintenance, enforcement, restoration (uck) and so on. That's where the ORV stickers came from and I'm guessing that since it was to fund DNR programs they opted at the time to get the Secretary of State out of the picture and administer the program themselves (no sharing of the pie, I suppose). From this perspective, it makes sense for me anyway.

After much gnashing of teeth they decided it was good and so it shall be. No more open trails unless it has a triangle on it; forest roads are still open (important note). For the topic of this discussion it's not as relevant but still good to know - event trail was also on the list of things we "had"; there would be the regular trail and when you wanted an event (enduro, trail tour) you would get to use temporary event trail which would save the beating on the public trail and give riders something new & different.
Seems like it was around '92 when this was finally being enforced although it went live in 90 or 91. And people were p|ssed off 'cause they couldn't ride where they used to, nor camp there either 'cause no trail was close to them (my crowd) but life moved on and the trails survived although the traffic on them was greatly increased.

Soon after this happened, a higher up in the MUCC decided he no longer wanted ORVs to be on the forest roads. Seems some of them were driving through or near his property or fishing creek - the way it's told by several sources to me is that a retired AF captain/pilot from up near Oscoda was PO'd 'cause ATVs were driving through his trout fishing crick. He also happened to be way high up in the MUCC at the time. Don't know his name, and this last bit is all "as it's been told". I'm certain there were other factors involved and this is not the "whole" story.
So, this dude makes it his personal mission to shut the forest roads down, shut all of it down if possible, but settle for closing of the forest roads. The MUCC has the muscle to pull this off and through their membership's influence they got legislation passed to close the forest roads down (circa 1994).

Ironically the MUCC would probably be the greatest benefactors of open forest roads - their hunting members in particular. I've understood their position has changed over the years to be more in favor of opening those roads back up, although the DNR is adamantly opposed to it. If we joined forces with the MUCC, there's a chance we could get the roads open, but it would be a huge task.

That's my story & I'm sticking to it, unless somebody has a different view. ;-)
Most of this has been independently gathered from different sources and the gist of it stays the same between those stories. I was not personally involved in the sport at this level back then (I was just a punk rider).

 

[morgan]

(I was just a punk rider).

A punk QUAD rider. ;) M.

 

[2TrakR]

A punk QUAD rider. ;) M.

Well, yeah. Heh. Really I was more into monster trucks back then and the quad, much like that condom you carried through high school, was unused. :nener:

 

[morgan]

Well, yeah. Heh. Really I was more into monster trucks back then and the quad, much like that condom you carried through high school, was unused. :nener:

I still have the same condom from high school in my wallet. Still waiting to get lucky.
Woops, did I just say that out loud? :ugg: M.

 

[Tomck]

Jeramey,

Do you know why the "DNR is adamantly opposed" to ORV use of forest "roads". If a street legal truck can use these roads, I do not understand the rationale for keeping ORVs off of them. Is it because the roads will tend to get whooped from the additional traffic? Thanks.

Tom

 

[2TrakR]

I'm basing my statement about the DNR from their official statement presented when Ogemaw County was opening it's county roads - Wish I had the whole statement 'cause it's very insightful. Inappropriate Access to Resources is a phrase that comes to mind. They've argued previously to keep ORVs "confined" to certain areas just for enforcement purposes (this was the excuse used to close down Gladwin south of Grim Road years ago).
Any of the conversations with DNR (forestry, ORV, enforcement) have also not received any positive or encouraging remarks when the subject was broached.

Geez, I wish I had the statement.. Torchia (Roscommon Unit Manager) read it at the Ogemaw Ordinance meeting and my interpretation was "we don't want you having access to our land".

 

[FLEM]

cars, cycles and ATV's create different frequency whoops, the whoops in the woods are much larger because of the wheelbase and suspension travel of bikes and quads, as well as the on/off throttle control that a rider naturally does whan riding whoops. the stutter ripples that cars and trucks create is resultant of tire diameter, longer wheelbases, and less suspension travel. If you've ever driven a truck, w/big tires on it, the frequqency is different, and it rides actually better on the gravel roads

 

[FLEM]

In many cases the DNR would be happy if no-one used the forest/state land at all.