Trails - what do YOU want

[KTM Mike]

WOW...what an outstanding post!

Not an easy to answer one.

First off,- and dont take offense with this SmitDog... you hit on a personal nerve with some of your comments (I know it was not your intent...but I am on my soap box now!) I cringe every time I see someone do the stereo typical rant on quads thing. We all know perfectly well there are some real dumb ass people on bikes to, as we all know not all quad riders are idiots. This sort of narrow view only divides us into factions, competing with each other, not cooperating. Several other have acknowledged the need for cooperating with other users to get more political clout. My son rides a quad - and is becoming a rather decent woods rider on it ...he is not an idiot, he rides responsbily, he wears all the proper gear, he only rides on legal trail, he can hustle that quad through the woods as quickly as some bike riders I know, he trys not to block trail and he pulls over to allow faster riders by...so please dont lump him in with the idiots! (soapbox mode off)

I enjoy a wide mix of trail types - my least favorite being the routes of course. I ride often with my kids and wife. One son on a quad, one son on a bike and my wife on a quad. The quad riders often comment that what is considered quad width trail (I will tell them its a mile wide!) is actually to tight for comfortable riding, particularily for my wife (she doesnt have an agressive riding bone in her body). My kid is now becoming a more agrressive rider on his quad though, and finds the tight trail challenge enjoyable. He rides at a sporting pace, not the common mushroom picking pace you often see from the older riders on utility quads ( BTW I am working on my kid to get him on a bike...maybe someday!).

From what I observe locally, most quad riders would like stuff wider than even 50". Now we are getting to real boring stuff for bikes. I am also not suprised to hear of quads spending less time on legal trails. It is very clear in this area.

To me, ideal answer - parrallel trails (did I spell that right?), way more trails...of all types. Woodsy has the right answer actually...open up all the two tracks...or some even...would make many people happy!

 

[Smit-Dog]

Mike - Sorry if you were offended, that was not my intent. Obviously not all quad riders are drunks tossing beer cans on the trail.

What I stated in that post were my observations, -/+ 10% margin of error, at the Gladwin south loop on Labor Day weekend 2004. It was not yet another stereotypical rant; it was based on what I saw that day. Prior to that weekend at Gladwin, I rarely saw quads on the trail (could count them on 1 hand), probably due to the fact that most of my riding is up around the clubgrounds with the MTRs.

Sure, I've heard stories similar to mine, but after encountering quad riders at Gladwin, it wasn't much of a stretch to see the source of the stereotype. I also prefaced my statement by saying that the observations we based on a limited and un-scientific sample size. Even so, it was enough of a negative experience to prompt me to post. This particular group of off-road riders may not be an accurate representation of our sport, but they are very visible, and do nothing to help our cause.

For some reason, the term "stereotyping" gets a bad rap. Sure it's an oversimplified generalization, but one that's typically rooted in first-hand observation. And a generalization is just that, meaning "in general", and doesn't imply that it applies 100% of the time.

 

[bbartol88]

I do a great deal of riding on the Meadows trail system. The sections of parallel trails that it has are wonderful. It allows mixed groups of riders to ride together. For example, quads can ride with bikes on the same trail or the bikes can ride the single track and the quads ride the wider trails, and everyone can still meet up at most road crossings. This also applies to slower or novice riders as well. When my girlfriend was learning to ride or our friends kids, they could take the wider, generally easier 2-track and the faster guys could take the single, more challenging tight trails, and we could all still meet at each road crossing to check on each other or chat.
Also, it seems that this approach would be a wise use of the land as well. Often, the single track only needs to be 50 ft from the two track. Keeping them close together means only one "noise" alley through the woods so as to limit objections from hikers, campers, hunters. Since the single track is so small and generally does not need any trees cutdown, it does very little to harm the natural beauty of the woods.

My other request would be to move trails occasionally. By this I mean that they should move some of the old trails that have been on the same track for 20 years now, and move them 50 ft or so to provide some new trail. If we were able to do this every few years, before developing huge ruts and whoops, the now unused sections would recover with growth in no time and it would be hard to tell that they ever existed.

Lastly, I would like to see less DNR dollars spent on parking lots, and more on the trails. I do not ride in MIchigan for the nice parking lots, but come for beatiful, well planned trails.

 

[KTM Mike]

Mike - Sorry if you were offended, that was not my intent.

Bill - no problem. I understand where you are coming from actually. I have had MANY experiences locally very similar to what you described.

Ironically, much of what you just said, is a text book definition of sterotyping. The problem comes in when "limited and unscientific samples" and "generaliztions" are applied across a whole population where "they may not be an accurate representation of our sport", and then used as either basis contributing to others (unsoundly?) based perceptions and mis perceptions, or worse yet, used (intentionally or unintentionally) as a basis to formulate policy positions.

Enough mental gymnastics.

Our common ground is an interest in trail systems. We have a LARGE population of users with the same interest. Together we have more clout than apart. Separately That group potentialy has more clout than we actually do. This makes them potentially very important partners in this issue. Negative statements about these potentially important partners does little to make them want to work with us.

So lets shift the focus then away from from the difference in the type of machine...after all the quad or bike doesnt drive it self. The real problem we have is the nuts behind the bars - and they are behind both bike and quad bars (and hanging out at the bars). Eliminate those problem riders, and suddenly we should have two groups of trail users much more likely to be able to work together in a common cause. I know, idealistic. But if we dont dream...where will we ever end up?

Imagine approaching the DNR with a trail improvement request. Approach one is, bikers alone, quad riders alone. Each argues its position, likely ignoring the other's needs or interests. DNR must choose (politically quite often) - so therefore it is likely one group wins, one group looses. As bikes CAN ride on quad trails, and quads CANT ride on bike only trails, well...what is safest for the DNR?

Approch two - a united front, both groups together - with mucho political clout, and a common position, some mutal interest stuff proposed, some single interest stuff supported by the other side. "Gee...develop both for us DNR" (ie...the parallel trails) Now they risk ticking off a much larger # of people.

I find myself leaning towards approach two. Even if it is an uneasy alliance, strenght in numbers!

Bill - I will buy ya a cold one next time i see you ok?!

 

[woodsy]

And now that Bill and Mike have buddied back up I will stir the pot a little more ;)
I went over and read the entire “ATV bashing” thread that 2trakr so kindly brought to our attention (NO Yzman, I did NOT read it all at once like you did). While I do not agree with Bottom Line on his approach and tact-less-ness, I really have to agree with something he brings to light. Let me explain.
His frustration over being part of the majority (like it or not guys – quad usage is HUGE compared to bikes, if you don’t believe it just stop at any bike shop that is selling quads too and ASK a salesperson to compare sales) and being treated like a “nobody” (they have fewer trails and have to share what they do get to ride – sleds have their own, bikes have their own). Personally, I agree with him in the fact that it’s not fair! However, I truly believe he is barking up the wrong tree.. His fight is NOT with his brother riders, it is with the State of Michigan! If the quaders REALLY wanted to aquire “political say so” and have some control over their own destiny they would be wise to begin with creating an association and developing political clout of their own. Simply put, I think BL is WAYYYY underestimating the magnitude of the clout I am talking about!
He forgets that HUNTERS are being denied use of quads on already established right of ways and disabled people are being denied use of these machines on two-tracks without a MAJOR legal battle to aquire that golden permit – he is NOT alone!! Just those 2 MASSIVE groups of people united for getting land for quad usage would make the State take notice! Bottom Line, if your reading this, think about the magnitude of making ALL of State and Federal Lands accessible to the disabled via quads – hey, why not make the land thief Al Gore EAT HIS WORDS :| !!!!
It is apparent that he (BL) fails to remember (and it seems that most of us do) that “Trail Riding” as a sport is dynamic and is constantly evolving and that Quads, as a part of our society, are the new comer. The battle for dirtbike “survival” was being fought longggg before the quads came into the game. The web of political circles that the CCC, the sled groups, the NRA and others operate in had their foundations woven A LONG TIME AGO. The quaders need to get FOCUSED and start weaving their own webs, so to speak..
Its to bad but IMHO, the time is still not quite right for “we outdoor enthusiasts” to join hands and speak united, with one HUGE voice, about the issue of wanting OUR land back. Maybe we are still a little selfish or something :laugh: .. It is from that vantage point that I think no one wants to share political clout – it seems that when that happens the results are losers and gainers and no one wants his side to lose…
Chew on that one guys :p
Woodsy

 

[INCA]

Woodsy has it right about quad people getting organized. There is a coalition formed that includes all types of groups that use the woods. The name starts with Michigan and has three more words I think. I am not aware of a group that is based on quad riders and is part of this coalition.
I hope that some who follow this thread do more than read and shake their heads. Get involved and let your representatives know your thoughts. Before anyone jumps on me, I have written or e-mailed every senator and representative in the state and have been attending the ORV Advisory Board meetings to speak my peace.

Young Ted

 

[miScott]

Tom,
Your recent read was right on the $. There is supposed to be another area, not just the Mounds. I think that place was the "close enough" for the Program to not complete it's job.
A private facility could make a killing on entry fees alone down that way, that's fur sure.
Thanks for your input!

There are 20,000 acres of state land in the Waterloo Recreation Area (which is 10 min from my house) and not a single mile of trail for ORV use. All trails are either horse, mountin bike or foot. :|

This year I rode my bike 8 days total! This is because it is such a pain to drive 8 hours (4 each way) for 4 hours of riding. :bang:

And I'm getting ready to winterize them.

 

[The Bottom Line]

Some thoughts that you won't see brought up at an orv advisory board meeting:

The orv update plan is being forged out of incomplete and dated data that the contractor himself has admitted wasn't funded at the levels needed.

The motorcyclists and their cronies on the advisory board haven't said a word about this data being outdated; nor demanded that it be brought up to date for obvious reasons.

Motorcyclists are now demanding that "worn" trails be retired and new ones built beside them.....yet refuse to open up the entire system and build "new" cycle trails beside what can easily be fixed with the proper equipment. Ironically, this would force both groups to work TOGETHER on ALL the trail systems...a concept these people reject. Why? Becuse this solution uncovers the fact that their requests for more trail mileage are not rooted in dodging trees or "what they desire"...rather in closing access to these "cycle only" areas to everybody but themselves.

Work "together"(?) with the balance of the off-road community on projects like their recent proposal to grab 100 miles of single-track in the Huron Forest?...why, heck no!..."we are the only motorized community that deserves to ride every trail out there and still "demand" wholly separate areas of our own!"

"Worn trails"....give me a break!

Just how stupid do these people think we all are in trying to convince us that these "damaged" trails didn't get that way from NOT throwing out the volunteer "saw and machete" maintenance program a long time ago?

Damaged trails somehow "fix themselves" by having 3 or 4 guys run down them with "hand tools" twice a year?

And these guys want this "phenomena" studied?

I guess $180,000 will cause some people to say and do just about 'anything' in eastern Michigan.

 

[fatherandson]

Bottom line, a couple of questions for you...
What is a Rhino?
Did you go to the ORV planning meeting in Lansing?

 

[2TrakR]

F&S:
See http://www.utilityoffroad.com/
http://www.yamaha-motor.com/products/unitinfo/12/sxs/36/318/0/yamaha_rhino_660_auto_4x4.aspx

TBL has played this saga out on ThumperTalk, I wouldn't waste much time on him.

 

[Smit-Dog]

Yamaha Rhino.... a 2 person, side-by-side, 1100 pound ATV.... Think of a golf cart on 'roids.

http://www.yamaha-motor.com/products/unitinfo/12/sxs/36/318/0/yamaha_rhino_660_auto_4x4.aspx

.

 

[woodsy]

Hey Bottom Line - welcome to Michigan Trail Riders!! Kind of a hangout for hardcore Michigan Woods Riders.. Glad you found us!
As long as you are in our midst you may as well hear what we are all about.. For us, there is nothing more thrilling then developing the skills necessary to weave a 2 wheeler thru the woodsyest, tightest, narliest, hilliest, muddiest terrain possible. The challenge of learning to ride on one wheel while manuvering over logs/rocks/stumps while at the same time maintaining forward motion thru a 32 inch wide trail is BREATHTAKINGLY a riot!! The FUN in woods riding for a great number of us is found in the slower pace (usually under 40 mph) of "technical single tracking". For most of us, the more technical it gets - the slower it gets, the more concentration it takes and the bigger the thrill gets!! :aj:
I tell you this because it seems like there are some people who may not totally understand the differences between this sport and quading.. At the risk of sounding like I am trying to put words in "Fatherandsons" mouth I believe that he was trying to make a point concerning how wide trail width almost became thru political manipulation by folks making alot of the same arquements that you present... Please try to understand that if that would have happened, our sport (yes, it sounds personal but anything that is worth doing becomes personal to most people doing it - I know alot of quadders who take quadding personal too) would have been instantly wiped out from public land! :(
I mentioned in an earlier post that I agreed with you that it is not fair that we single trackers, being in a minority, have more access to public land then the quadders do being in the majority. However, I most certainly DO NOT agree with the underlying premise that our sport should be eradicated just so the majority can have their way.. I certainly hope that you as an American can understand the impications of that thought :|
If you stop and think about it, there is PLENTY of room for all of us IF the state would rethink this whole "Closed Unless Posted Open" policy... Another angle on that line would be for them to simply alter the green slip used to approve "off road" equipment for "on road" usage to include quads! DId you know that back in the early 70's three wheelers could be street legaled?? Thats right, I actually had a real close friend who rode his Big Red to work in down town Muskegon everyday!! I think it would be GREAT if a whole bunch of quadders/Rhino riders/dune buggy enthusiasts got together and fought to have this happen :worship:
While seeking resolution for your cause may I make a suggestion from me to you?? Have you ever personally tried tight woods single tracking on a motorcycle?? Give it shot sometime!! It takes alot of time, practice, intestinal fortitude and passion (all virtues that you exibit) to become proficient at it but you may be enlightened in the process and who knows, you may even find a new way to have FUN!! :ride:
Woodsy

 

[The Bottom Line]

"...As long as you are in our midst you may as well hear what we are all about.. For us, there is nothing more thrilling then developing the skills necessary to weave a 2 wheeler thru the woodsyest, tightest, narliest, hilliest, muddiest terrain possible. The challenge of learning to ride on one wheel while manuvering over logs/rocks/stumps while at the same time maintaining forward motion thru a 32 inch wide trail is BREATHTAKINGLY a riot!! The FUN in woods riding for a great number of us is found in the slower pace (usually under 40 mph) of "technical single tracking". For most of us, the more technical it gets - the slower it gets, the more concentration it takes and the bigger the thrill gets!! :aj:
I tell you this because it seems like there are some people who may not totally understand the differences between this sport and quading....".
Woodsy

I don't believe there's a person in the atving community that doesn't understand why you "like" the trails you do. My argument has always simply been the fact that arrogant Michigan motorcyclists are flat out refusing to even "debate" the fact that these trails can be laid down right beside the multi-use trails we so desperately need. These guys and gals evidently aren't interested in working together on these type of projects; as they are supporting leadership who have taken the same strategy as 2Trakr above....discredit those who are bringing the facts and possible solutions forward while encouraging antiquated methods that keep the cash flowing in and their #1 lobbyist "employed".

Read my post again and tell me that having accurate data as to the state of our trail system and who is actually using it; isn't the most important ingredient needed when crafting an orv update plan....yet guys like 2trakr and his :worship: leadership are trying to tell me that more hours are spent on these trails by motorcyclists from "sample" data that isn't even current! (and then claiming that these are the numbers we should go by!).

Why should I have to waste my allotted 5 minutes at these advisory meetings arguing that the general public can't contact their own advisory board or that the :worship: motorcycle gang won't say a word when the DNR changes their mind regarding just who can serve on OUR board or who we have to "go through" when approaching same?

I am tired of these arrogant *******s running this system into the ground and making this state lose out on all the potential revenue that other states have reaped for the simple reason that "their" trail revenue (and leadership salary) would be lost though the use of full-time modern equipment on our trails. And it is that fact (potential revenue for the state) which will eventually bring these people back out of the clouds and down to earth like the rest of us.

 

[fatherandson]

The Bottom Line...I thought maybe Dick Vitale had made it to MTR. I am pretty sure that I sat behind TBL at the meeting in Lansing. Most of the comments after his speech included...All ORV (2 wheel, 4 wheel and full size) need to work together. I am just glad he was limited to 5 minutes.

Rhino...looks like it can throw A LOT dirt...especially doing donuts in the parking lots!!

 

[The Bottom Line]

"..I am pretty sure that I sat behind TBL at the meeting in Lansing. Most of the comments after his speech included...All ORV (2 wheel, 4 wheel and full size) need to work together. I am just glad he was limited to 5 minutes...."

Why were you glad MY comments about working together were limited to 5 minutes? Is it because my concept of this ideal includes doing it ON THE SAME TRAIL? (how these guys are trying to pass this bogus "huggy/feely" crap off in any other way is beyond me. We've already witnessed the kind of leaders they brought forward in their failed "Michigan Recreational Riders Association who couldn't even form a united voice for the update plan! (and what did the driving force behind this group have to rudely say when they didn't show?....."well, uhhhhhh, maybe they don't have anything to say!).

These paralell trails are already in use on our system (see the Manistee).....yet it is the selfish motorcyclist who is not satisfied with this SIMPLE SOLUTION. 'He'(she) believes that God has destined their machines to be worthy of "separate" trails that... "shall not so much as even 'glimpse' the lowly 4-wheel rider in their entirety".

The solution has already been proven....SELFISHNESS IS THE ONLY OBSTACLE TO IMPLIMENTING IT!!!

Again, fatherandson....what didn't you like about my comments that day? (remember, I have a good memory and simply stated FACTS, as I just did above).

By the way, I do love my Rhino and wouldn't go back to atving if you gave me one (it's like night and day). :)

 

[2TrakR]

Kind of sounds like a soured individual whose chosen mount is not legal for use on public lands in the lower peninsula except on the few ORV Routes that exist nowhere near his place of residence. Too bad they are not eligible for being made street legal either.

 

[fatherandson]

If you mentioned working together during the Lansing meeting, then I have the wrong person. The person I sat behind starting his presentation by complaining about the AMA, the CCC, and the ORV Advisory Board. The 5 minute presentation also included a statement that ALL trails should be wider than 40 inches.
If you agree that parallel trails are a good idea, than I definitely have the wrong person. Sorry.

I fully support parallel trails. In fact, I am currently working on a parallel trail proposal. Unfortunately, it has take 3 years for it to be approved by the DNR. I look forward to the support on more parallel trails.

 

[2TrakR]

fatherandson - what area are you working on trail props for? Anything I (we) can do to assist with the process?

 

[FLEM]

I was at the Lansing mtg. that guy(ATV) just got up and complained,he was trying to musle everyone out by blaming everyone els., if he didn;t have a time limit it would have gotten ugly. I also stood up and mentioned parrallel trails at the meeting, pointing out that the Meadows loop works quite well. From just a pure safety issue there needs to be separate trails, the wider the trail the greater the speeds will be. Two days after riding the Meadows(MCCT) I was up grouse hunting in the same area, and some of the ORV routes are also forest roads in the area, I almost had three quad riders as hood ornaments on my suburban they were racing on the ORV route, so I'm not so sure that opening the forest roads is such a great idea. a few quad/car accidents and we'll have more restrictions than you could possibly think because all off-roading will be lumped into it.

 

[FLEM]

Oh, going back to an earlier post,
INCA, are you thinking of the MUCC michigan united conservation clubs.

 

[woodsy]

"guys like 2trakr and his leadership are trying to tell me that more hours are spent on these trails by motorcyclists from "sample" data that isn't even current! (and then claiming that these are the numbers we should go by!)."

TBL: I learned a longggg time ago that the surest way to get myself and my cause unregonized is by making false accusations toward an individual. I happened to have just followed 2Trakr on one of his DATA GATHERING excersises and I can assure you that the the following data is CURRENT!!
I did a little research and found this on TT in your ATV Bashing post.. It is written by 2Trakr and DIRECTLY answers the debate that you are so aggressively pursueing:

"Of the trail systems located in just the lower peninsula, there is 1 system that's bike only, 6 that are mixed and 24 that are ATV. Sure doesn't look like the evil cyclist (as TBL might say) are getting their way with those numbers. There's one system at the 40" rule, 6 have some trail that is 40" and some that are 50" or 72" (that's the mixed item) and 24 that both 50" and 72" but no 40".

My club (GLDS) maintains 2 of the 50" trails - Gladwin & Geels - which are on the east side of the state, more towards the southern area of the trail systems. I'd be happy to show you & your family where to camp as well as the trails themselves. Make it a holiday weekend & you're welcome to camp with my family. Of course you would have to put up with bikes from 50cc to 525cc and 3 wheelers and quads of all sizes (just in my camp).

Your reference to the MCCCT being just for Dual Sport riders is a bit misleading. While a licensed vehicle is required to travel the entire system, much of it is shared with public road and public (ORV) trail, so it is not another 750 mile trail system just to themselves. Since I have almost finished recording (GPS) the trail system in the lower, I have a few numbers to share. The Michigan Cross Country Cycle Trail is 689 miles, not 750, which includes the Cross State Connector. Of those 689 miles:
69 are 40" cycle only trails not shared with other systems
59.6 are 50" trails (mixed with some forest roads so not all can be traversed with just an ORV sticker)
232.2 are public roads and highways which any licensed vehicle (in theory any car) can traverse
The remaining 328 are shared with other marked trail systems, the majority being 50" ATV trails.

Again, I only have current actual data for the lower peninsula and here it is:
Trail Spec...Miles
40"...234
50"...1052.9
72"...326.1
Total...1613

Combined with the trail only sections of the MCCCT:
40"...303
50"...1112.5
72"...326.1
Total...1741.6"


TBL: The TRUE bottom line to your whole summation, if you would have the decency to follow 2Trakrs CURRENT data, is that the Single Trackers are the ones who should be howling for equalization!! IMHO, the above CURRENT and FACTUAL DATA gathered by a person who is sincere and devoted to a good cause that includes EVERY riding element is solid enough to bring this particular debate to a close!!

Woodsy

 

[Nestrick]

Hey Folks …To Whom It May Concern …

Since its inception, this thread has been an exposition of widely varying opinions directed at our beloved Michigan trail system … as such, it provides an interesting overview of the possibilities which prevail ranging from its physical properties to its subjective rules of implementation. As one might expect, the various players seem to be representative of our population as a whole … there are many who know a little, a few who know a bit more, and very few who know a lot … and despite their position on this relative scale of knowledge, isn’t it funny how nearly everyone displays such fervor regarding the importance of their personal opinion? Often to the point of becoming rude if such opinion is not readily accepted by others.

Might I make a comment that the onset of this thread began with 2TrakR providing his compilation of the very latest GPS data available on the trail system as well as definitive references for all of the mathematical terms generated from his presentation of available data [old and new combined]. To a subsequently posed question regarding the methodology used to derive certain data presented for usage statistics 2TrakR provided very specific references:

“This data is from the 1999 study done by Dr Charles Nelson of MSU commissioned by the DNR. We should have more current data in a few months when the 2004 study is done.
You can read the info for yourself by getting the PDF from the DNRs site.
Here's the page:
http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,...93372--,00.html
Here's the actual PDF document that explains the methodologies:
http://www[/I].midnr.com/publications/p...Study_98-99.pdf”

Having briefly examined these citations, noting also that I am definitely a member of the crowd who knows only a little, I can unequivocally pronounce [translation: very strong opinion] that 2TrakR is one of those rare folks who knows a lot about this issue and is therefore someone to whom we should all be listening with regard to data concerning our trails. He rides them, he maintains them, he maps them, he attends meetings with appropriate governing bodies and is broadly involved with a variety of clubs and organizations who deal with the trail system on a routine basis.

After reading Woodsy’s latest response, if this thread were a tennis match, Woodsy has summarily reached the point of: Game – Set – Match !!! However, as in matters of real life, TBL and others of his vein are not likely to give up their quest. Tilting at windmills is in the human gene … it is not usually as dominant as displayed by some in this thread, but it is definitely in all of us. Therefore, I strongly agree with Woodsy, I hope this debate is closed until all of the data promised is available and has been assessed by folks of the stature of 2TrakR … only then, will we be in a defensible position to decide what said data actually means relative to the riding public, and that includes everyone!

terry nestrick :bang:

 

[woodsy]

fatherandson - what area are you working on trail props for? Anything I (we) can do to assist with the process?

Yea Mike, PLEASE let us know if there is anything we can do.. Thanks for your hard work!!
Woodsy

On a side note folks, my comment about "this debate being closed" was in reference to my personal participation in dueling with BL.. I was in NO WAY assumeing the role of JUDGE/JURY or trying to speak for others concerning the matter...
2Trakr/Fatherandson/INCA/YZMAN (and LOTS of others) - your hard work and pure enthusiasim for doing a great job is highly appreciated by myself - the west side "biker gang" and a LOT of QUAD riders in our area!! PLEASE dont let nay sayers EVER effect the passion and love you have for what you do!! ;)

 

[The Bottom Line]

Kind of sounds like a soured individual whose chosen mount is not legal for use on public lands in the lower peninsula except on the few ORV Routes that exist nowhere near his place of residence. Too bad they are not eligible for being made street legal either.

I have never advocated any special consideration for my machine (do a search, my friend!).....which is in direct contrast to the trails both you and your arrogant ridership believe the citizens of this state should set aside for yours..("ouch"). ;) (sorry, but you walked right into that one, my friend!)

I've laid down some pretty damning facts about how you guys operate in just this little piece here (never mind the 19 pages at ThumperTalk)....when are you all going to start realizing that your inability to answer or refute even one of them....truly tells this whole story in a nutshell?

Hey, let's just start with an easy one.

What reasoning have you used to justify your recent attempt to bust out the largest new Michigan trail system in DECADES (See the now infamous "Huron Foresat Land Grab")....and then demand that it be impact studied as all single track? How about an official position from "God" on that one? Was this one of your 'shining' examples of how you guys are "all about" multi-use trails and working TOGETHER?

 

[The Bottom Line]

"....Therefore, I strongly agree with Woodsy, I hope this debate is closed until all of the data promised is available and has been assessed by folks "of the stature" of 2TrakR … only then, will we be in a defensible position to decide what said data actually means relative to the riding public, and that includes everyone!

terry nestrick :bang:

Don't patronize the atving public by claiming that there is any "stature" involved here (you guys have got your noses so high up in the air that I'm surprised any of you can even navigate a trail).

WHAT IN THE HECK DATA HAS EVER BEEN "PROMISED"..... AND WHERE DID YOU GET ANY INFORMATION THAT SUCH A MASSIVE STUDY HAS EVEN BEEN SO MUCH AS FUNDED TO DATE?

Please don't blow smoke at us about facts that haven't even been so much as sought after or would mean a hill of beans AFTER this update plan has been finalized.

Again, how arrogant can you guys be for believing we are stupid enough to wait on info that was never so much as asked for! Why do you think your leadership blew me off when I brought UP this lack of sufficient and current data at the very first meeting Dr. Nelson attended?
This all wasn't relevant THEN....yet when the update plan is in its final stages..."LET'S DO A STUDY"???.
What are you guys going to do...show up at the next advisory board meeting compalining about the "need for more accurate data" after this orv update plan has been in the work for literally YEARS and is nearing completion?

Give us a break!