Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest banner

Our super-secret and anonymous representative council

12K views 136 replies 28 participants last post by  TOPWOP 
#1 · (Edited)
I copied this from my original post in a thread that got off-topic; so that Trail Fanatic didn't take that fact and use same as an excuse from answering thee very pointed and legitimate questions concerning our sport below.

Here is the exchange that has yet to receive a reply:

Originally posted by
Trail_Fanatic:

"Therf's nothing super-secret about the MMRC.
I serve on it as a representative of the over 50" ORV class.

Sir (John, is it?),

The world is run by those who show up.
If you don't like the way it's being run, maybe it's time you showed up?
Heaven knows we could use the help.
Complaining doesn't constitute helping, either.
Think long enough to come up with at LEAST one possible solution to each of your problems.
Maybe one will be "THE" one which finally works.

One of the 'rules' (suggestions) of activism I picked up along the way (and like VERY much):

If you don't have a solution to offer,
You don't have a problem to bring up."


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Originally posted by OneManBanned):

Ahhhh!
Our very first publicly announced council member! (after how many years of silence on every single orv issue brought forward over that very long period of time?).

Are you here to make a statement as to who else serves on this council representing orvs in the state of Michigan and what their collective views are....or have you come across the moat to take a potshot; heave up the drawbridge and return defiantly to the collective fortress?

A couple questions if you don't mind.
I am a long time Rhino owner who certainly had trouble joining the "over 50 inch" folks that at least "I" talked to when my rig first hit the market.
Question #1...wasn't it you and your council who literally bragged about killing the 60" widening bill (House Bill 5343) in less than 26 hours???....):

And if you are indeed Mr. "over 50 inch".....who do I talk to PUBLICLY on this council about the new Polaris RZR and how this innovative manufacturer has literally shoved this groundbreaking machine right on up your collective rear ends after your 'representative council' immediately jumped all over this environmentally sound widening bill brought forward through Representative Hildenbrand and others without public or even orv community commentary?
(from atvconnection.com):http://www.atvconnection.com/Feature...Ranger-RZR.cfm

And as a follow-up....Did you support the notion that widening these trails to 60 inches was indeed 'cost prohibitive'....while at the same time ram-rodding even more mileage through this council and later our legislature? (we show up at our advisory board meeting only to be told that our trails are in disgusting disrepair and should indeed be closed down for 'study'...yet the next thing you know....Polaris is getting their teeth kicked out over establishing the correct width needed to actually MAINTAIN these trails correctly with decent equipment! (while yet even more trails are ADDED with absolutely no public discussion whatsoever as to the actually funding of ANY of this new mileage).

And excuse me, if indeed "there (is) nothing 'super-secret' about the MMRC...."
....then how in the heck did 'ol "blackballed" below (myself) get both his name and signature?
(from atvconnection.com)http://forums.atvconnection.com/mess...did/473974.cfm

"...Sir (John, is it?),

The world is run by those who show up.
If you don't like the way it's being run, maybe it's time you showed up?..."


(lol)
How many MORE times would you like me to "show up"...and how do my appearances "showing up" compare with 99% of the folks out there who have never made a trip to Lansing or maybe never even hosted youth training sessions out of their own damn pockets?
How would you like "showing up" after driving all the way to Lansing....and then be rudely shouted down; lied to and gaveled out the door before your alloted time to publicly speak was over with?

"Show up"....why don't YOU show up when it comes time to answer the tough questions that I've brought forward on this board to date...instead of taking the simpleton 'attack' route like every other arrogant and anonymous member of the council that you sit on with a bag over your head?

"...Heaven knows we could use the help..."

What help????

'Help' in bashing every orv user out there who comes up with a legitimate question directed towards representative 'leaders' that they can't even contact without spending several years attempting to determine who they even ARE or what they are in effect telling others as to what 'we' want?

Where in the heck were you when I needed "help" in getting the damn orv advisory board to meet as scheduled right smack dab in the middle of the single most important period in Michigan's orv history?
How about 'help' in forcing the DNR to publish the damn meeting minutes a full 8 weeks after that?
Or was "Mr. over 50 inch" so far 'in the know' during this critical time period....that us mere peons out here with no bag to put over our head ....weren't really a 'concern' in regards to even the most basic of tenants involving procedural protocol and our right to be heard as citizens of this state??

"...Complaining doesn't constitute helping, either...."

You know something, Trail Fanatic...I'll complain any time I DAMN WELL LIKE when it comes to you and your MMRC 'buddies' supposedly representing me for all these years without so much as even a meeting minutes published and literally tens of millions now on the line affecting MY resource.
How such a flat out arrogant attitude such as yours can be so wide-spread in this community is certainly beyond me; yet your failure to tackle even ONE of the tough questions raised since I've had the pleasure of joining this forum; tells me that 'silence' is about all we're going to indeed receive from 'leaders' such as yourself while these millions do indeed get spent .

"...Think long enough to come up with at LEAST one possible solution to each of your problems.
Maybe one will be "THE" one which finally works...."


Here you are avoiding every damn question about the problems themselves.....effectively BLOCKING every single discussion designed to dig away at the root of our problems while offering solutions at the same time...and all you've got for a 'comeback' is that each one of these is MY problem not 'worthy' of your input!

I mean, really TF....doesn't the above statement almost DEFINE the arrogance I've been describing here in almost graphic detail???
Can you possibly GET any more look-down-your-nose than that...or are you simply 'warming up'?

"....One of the 'rules' (suggestions) of activism I picked up along the way (and like VERY much):

If you don't have a solution to offer,
You don't have a problem to bring up...."


Which is the biggest bunch of fluff politico spin ever thought up and one that has been used by rank amateur politicians for years.

99.9% of the folks bringing any issue before ANYBODY damn well possess a solution in mind and aren't a bit 'afraid' to tell you about it....IF GIVEN THE CHANCE TO DO SO.

What usually gets in the way of these good folks ACTUALLY ACCOMPLISHING THIS; is, again, 'spin meisters' like yourself continually attempting to divert any and all attention away from the subject at hand.
Want an example?
How about all the very simple and direct questions asked previously (there must be 'fifty' good ones by now)....with nothing but a claim by you that absolutely no solutions can be found in either the questions themselves or god forbid the massive amount of text put forth to date indeed explaining how we need to fix what is broken.

If you want to act like the rest of these guys and re-direct everything thrown at you with well worn out politico 'sayings'...have at it.

Yet I believe there are a few on this board who understand the facts brought forward to date here whether I get kicked off of this forum before explaining them further or not.

I don't like talking to long-respected members of these forums like this, believe me....vet this crap has gone on for far to long and it must stop before our kids lose any further interest in getting involved in these issues.
If these young people have to work even half as hard as I have had to in wading through the cast of condescending characters standing in their way on these issues...who in the heck here believes that they will ever pick up even one of them and run with it???

--------------------------------------------------------------------------Originally posted by:

OneManBanned

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trail_Fanatic
"Therf's nothing super-secret about the MMRC.
...."


Then 'Google' these anonymous bastards operating as our supposed voice for YEARS now and pay special attention to the heading "Concerns of trail riders delay changes in ORV rules...".

Now tell me something Mr. "over 50 inch"....what in the heck machine do these goofs want 'banned' if they are not indeed regulated in WHAT manner?

And are you in possesssion of some kind of holier-than-thou 'proclamation' from these arrogant arses regarding the further use of my machine or god forbid the Polaris RZR that we here in the overall orv community are presently unaware of?

What's next?

You and your anonymous buddies working hard into the night on seeking to 'ban' this grounbreaking machine from the 50" trails also?

Seems to me that as our side-byu-side 'representative'....you SURELY should have all manner of commentary regarding this new product that Polaris finally and thankfully shoved right back up your rear ends when you slammed the door in both their and OUR faces here in Michigan.(sorry, but in the less than 26 hours it took to kill this thing...NOT A 'PEON' MEMBER OF THIS ORV COMMUNITY EITHER KNEW ABOUT THIS BILL OR RECEIVED EVEN A FAIR OPPORTUNITY TO SO MUCH AS COMMENT ON SAME....AND YOU DAMN WELL KNOW IT).

So now that you've Googled this 100% out-in-the-open represenative council that you're "Mr. over 50 inch" on.....how many and what references do you find explaining exactly what they or you believe in (beyond feel good politico speak) and more importantly...can you ascertain just HOW they are representing us with all these 10's of millions of dollars now on the line?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by OneManBanned:

Adding to the comment above regarding our community representative's suggestion to ban these 'new' machines (not motorcycles obviously) or definitely by gosh further regulate their use....is there somebody on your super-secret council addressing Mr. Moll's pressing issue here (page 4) immediately before the last orv advisory board meeting adjourned? http://www.michigan.gov/documents/dn...s_179305_7.pdf

Is it your job Mr "over 50 inch" to contact both the NOHVCC and the CPSC (and I'd like to know who in the heck suggested that course of action to brush this inexplainable outburst quickly under the rug ) regarding Mr. Moll's insistence that something by gosh be done about this???

...and Michigan orv enthusiasts have allowed this guy's term to expire in December without so much as a 'peep' from ANYBODY in the orv community......for exactly what reason?

Yeah, we need one of the few true orv representives we have on that board writing letters to Polaris, Yamaha and the all the other manufacturers out there as to how they should damn well build their products.

And you guys expect that we should all just 'leave it up to you' and certainly quit asking these pesky questions as to just who represents us or what they have to say in meetings with others even more important to this sport?
 
See less See more
#45 ·
I have to say I agree with John on the fact the groups refuse to be amical enough to work together. there is no reason we can't have a 10,000 member club that supports all the groups. we have the numbers. just not the will.

As for discussing ATV issues here? its a major part of OUR sport and I would expect that of everyone here you see that. reguardless of width we are in this together.
so when everyone is done telling people to shove off, and puffing out our chests at each other we will still need a course of action to persue in order to get more trail or route.
 
#54 ·
Thank you to those who supported me and also to you, OneManBanned.
I appreciate your kind words. I do my best to stay PC when I'm 'representing' our sport. Not always as easy as it should, but I try.

No, my feelings weren't hurt. I can take it.
I don't think you're talking about me personally when you speak of the MMRC. I've only been on-board for a year.

It really isn't anonymous, it's kept as small as possible so that business can be conducted more easily. There is no charter or by-laws. It's not an 'official' organization created by some obscure lobby, it's just a couple of representatives from the state level associations of the various forms of orv getting together to get on the same page and see how much we can agree on.

There isn't an RUV representative because we don't know of any state-wide organization representing them. I try to keep you guys in mind when I make comments, as does Dick (believe it or not). He has voiced concern over the lack of direction for your class of vehicle.

We understand that right now you're only legally allowed on ORV Routes like us 4x4s - without the benefit of the Forest and County Road systems to back it up. I understand that you don't care for it. I don't either.

That's why I continue to try to do what I can.

. . . and I have leaned through experience that people must present themselves as the type of individuals who the various decision makers want to work with if anything is going to get accomplished.

It's all about partnerships.

If we can't get along, we'll never be able to work together.
 
#55 · (Edited)
"..I don't think you're talking about me personally when you speak of the MMRC. I've only been on-board for a year..."

No, I wasn't...as you have at least kept your mind open and allowed the story to be told as to just what transpired before you got there. This has been the problem with others. They can't dispute the facts brought forward...so they attack anybody that was (unfortunately for them) there in person to witness how folks have been treated for decades now that dared to step forward.

"...It really isn't anonymous, it's kept as small as possible so that business can be conducted more easily...."

Respectfully, TF....we've already got 'the man' on record boasting of how he would "never reveal" who these guys were from the beginning...a quote I made part of my signature on this thread (from the atv connection forums http://forums.atvconnection.com/mes...adid=473974&highlight_key=y&keyword1=michigan) for quite some time when he would duck in and out of the discussion at his liesure.

I've asked questions for YEARS to even the DNR of these secretive individuals....who for a long time wouldn't even admit to knowing who they were...this council supposedly working "hand in hand" with the same people!

I don't know what they've told you about how these guys formed and what they promised all of us at that board meeting where they admonished us for not getting folks like the sledders involved in this type of council...but please don't tell me that the absence of these highly organized 'we have no secrets' snowmobilers now....is some kind of 'accident'. (one only has to compare the availiability of contact information for our group and theirs to get the whole story here...and it's been that way for years despite loud calls for 'stand up like a man' change).

"....There is no charter or by-laws. It's not an 'official' organization created by some obscure lobby, it's just a couple of representatives from the state level associations of the various forms of orv getting together to get on the same page and see how much we can agree on...."

C'mon, TF and respectfully again....there are certain rules that a non-profit must abide by when lobbying the state on these issues...and I don't have to go any further in explaining the bs methods of whitewashing this fact.

If you're proud of what you're doing; you invite and allow the public in to discuss these issues just as these people (from the Ohio Multi-Use Trails Association website: http://www.ohiotrails.org/ ) are doing not just a few miles south of us next month.
This type of 'act like a man' public meeting has never occured and never will in Michigan if this council continually shows up at advisory board meetings claiming 'this is the way it's going to be' with a nod at the board and no public back and forth discussion following...and that's a damn shame, IMO with all these millions on the line presently.

"...There isn't an RUV representative because we don't know of any state-wide organization representing them...."

Lack of representation for Ruvs is such a small part of the problem here that the issue doesn't even register when considering that the public has no way to determine how we will be represented when these multi-million dollar proposals are put forward.
They killed the 60" bill and were arrogant enough to not even explain themselves while quickly burying that groundbreaking legislation just as fast as they could.
We've asked those very questions right here...and you'll be chastised to no end if you ask them again of these people....which is why our atv representatives refused to do so and supported the bill 100% at that time.(nobody wants to buck anybody supporting the city slicker suburban riding area they want to put in at a huge cost to the rest of the 'hick' system in dire need of repair...and they never will).

"...I try to keep you guys in mind when I make comments, as does Dick (believe it or not). He has voiced concern over the lack of direction for your class of vehicle...."

C'mon, TF; his sidekick on the board has called for either regulating them (with absolutely no position put forth publicly)...OR (by gosh) BANNING THEM!

These guys are both representing us on expired terms, you know it, support it and won't say a word about it; just like everybody else on here and in the community.

With the sad part here being...that when we get somebody up there that we REALLY disagree with?...the precedent will have already been set and good darn luck getting rid of them.
 
#57 ·
"Respectfully, TF....we've already got 'the man' on record boasting of how he would "never reveal" who these guys were from the beginning...a quote I made part of my signature on this thread (from the atv connection forums http://forums.atvconnection.com/mess...word1=michigan) for quite some time when he would duck in and out of the discussion at his liesure.

I've asked questions for YEARS to even the DNR of these secretive individuals....who for a long time wouldn't even admit to knowing who they were...this council supposedly working "hand in hand" with the same people!

I don't know what they've told you about how these guys formed and what they promised all of us at that board meeting where they admonished us for not getting folks like the sledders involved in this type of council...but please don't tell me that the absence of these highly organized 'we have no secrets' snowmobilers now....is some kind of 'accident'. (one only has to compare the availiability of contact information for our group and theirs to get the whole story here...and it's been that way for years despite loud calls for 'stand up like a man' change)." qoute from onemandelusional

This cracks my ass up, I was one of the founding members of the MMRC super secret council and dont recall the meeting where were said we would forever be cloaked in darkness and work closely with the CIA and DNR operatives to never reveal our real identity to the general public. But I digress, excuse me while I go wash my cape and polish my dagger.
 
#58 ·
"I was one of the founding members of the MMRC super secret council and dont recall the meeting where were said we would forever be cloaked in darkness and work closely with the CIA and DNR operatives to never reveal our real identity to the general public..
From the atvconnection website http://forums.atvconnection.com/messageview.cfm/catid/24/threadid/473974/STARTPAGE/7.cfm and "BusyRider":

"I certainly am not going to tip my hand in any plans of action by MMRC or any other group, or planning that is in process that I may know of...Let me assure anyone reading, everytime possible, any decisions that are major, WE make them together through MMRC. I will never reveal who all the allies are in MMRC...."

:confused:
 
#59 ·
I dont recall the meeting where were said we would forever be cloaked in darkness and work closely with the CIA and DNR operatives to never reveal our real identity to the general public. But I digress, excuse me while I go wash my cape and polish my dagger.

Dude you have to stop, I have tears rolling down my face I'm laughing so hard.
 
#62 ·
The thread you linked above shows that folks on the other forums have the same problem with you that we see here. You ramble on and on with accusations. If a person on that web site said that they wouldn't reveal names, it does not reflect a charter of bylaw of the group as a whole. I don't read there where he is speaking as the voice of the entire group. Your link means nothing to me.
 
#63 ·
"..If a person on that web site said that they wouldn't reveal names, it does not reflect a charter of **bylaw** of the group as a whole. I don't read there where he is speaking as the voice of the entire group. Your link means nothing to me.
Maybe this one will 'jog your memory'....
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/May2006Minutes_160784_7.pdf
pg. 3 under "new business"/MMRC/first sentance describing the goup's first and last public appearance ever after years operating in the shadows previously....including right on up to this date).

Again, if you guys are willing to allow folks like the above to continually insult your intelligence on matters affecting this community...more power to you.
 
#65 · (Edited)
CIA? Cloak and dagger? This whole thread confuses the hell out of me.:confused: Cliff notes please?
I wish they were available!

______________________________________________________________

Yes, the MMRC supported the proposal.
It addresses all 3 types of trail.

Is there any other proposal out there to support?
I don't think so, or at least, I've never seen one.

So now the only folks willing to do the WORK and actually MAKE a proposal are the bad guys?

Non-participation and lack of effort aren't going to get anything done.

Looks to me like they're the good guys.
The ONLY group who's DONE anything.
Where's YOUR proposal? . . . or ANYONE else's?

Like I said before:

The world is run by those who show up.

If you don't like it, SHOW UP!
. . .and be WORTH working WITH!

If you don't present yourself appropriately, you'll end up getting ignored (as people naturally tend to do to those who do not -- It's human nature)
 
#68 · (Edited)
"...If you don't like it, SHOW UP!
. . .and be WORTH working WITH!

If you don't present yourself appropriately, you'll end up getting ignored (as people naturally tend to do to those who do not -- It's human nature)..."

I made it a point to "show up" at every meeting that was availiable for years.

My last appearance involved outright lies by the very people you defend today; lies propagated so that my simple right to speak out as a citizen of this state was taken away immediately, rudely and without apology.

Please don't preach to me about how the citizens of this state must be "WORTH" listening to or how we will be 'ignored' if you, or any of these people you defend, choose to loudly slam the gavel down right in the middle of our public presentations at these meetings.

We have the right to speak out while demanding that our questions be answered..and we will do so whether you sit on this MMRC council comfortably insulated from the realities of public opinion....or not.

Again, don't throw these buzzwords about 'getting involved' at me, my young friend...and especially if you're a little wet around the ears, yourself.
 
#70 · (Edited)
I really hate to bring up something similiar to what you guys chose to ignore earlier (actually paying to upkeep the side of our roads) ...but without reading any of the above letters...would I be safe to say that none of them included a segment concerning exactly how each individual felt that this new system should be funded?

We just got through pushing through 750 miles of orv trail without commentary from even our all-powerful and super-secret MMRC council regarding (again) the exact same funding-based subject....so who's the 'guru' now crunching these numbers so that the public can make these decisions on a cost analysis basis?

Don't get me wrong, I'll join many on here and pay whatever it takes....yet didn't this arrogantly anonymous council claim just recently that it was MUCH to expensive to allow "over 50 inch" (or under for that matter) machines a mere 5 more inches on trails that were already cut out in most places to that width or wider?

Again, you guys are so interested in splitting this community into as many segments as you can and each with their own agenda (the above is being proposed by what umbrella group that we should all be organized under?)....that even the most basic tenants of project management (namely FUNDING and future sustainable MAINTENANCE) are merely an 'afterthought' that inconveniently gets in the way of folks unconcerned with this seemingly small detail....just about as much as they are with writing the damn letter for themselves in the first place.

You know, it's pretty sad that not two years ago; everybody was praising the CCC/AMA and all these other guys who lead you boys around by the nose...as to how it was such a good idea to start "resting portions of the nasty old system for "the purpose of studying it" while re-routing these trails right around these 'raped' 4x4 areas that were "beyond repair".

Now do a little fast forward regarding this community's "concern" for this HUGE problem...How much do you hear TODAY simply fixing what we have now or the money needed TODAY to both fund this ambitious project and all the others you guys constantly dream up on a daily basis? (including what would also be a big city riding area...if you could downplay the money issue once again...and get away with it?).

TF comes on here claiming that the MMRC hasn't talked funding since he's been there.
The advisory board waits until JUST LAST MONTH to send up some kind of inept smokescreen to the general public about "gee, uhhhh...maybe we'd better form a "funding sub-committee" to make up for the "task force" on funding we formed LAST YEAR...that never met or gave a report on the exact same subject..."

This isn't leadership or anything resembling the appearance of this community actually CARING about the resource or even FIXING what we've broke in it...it's about "business as usual" with nothing but a bunch of clubs now salivating over not only these new trails...but the UNKNOWN price we will pay them to maintain them (and gosh, isn't it funny fow the CCC and all you other guys absolutely HATE the department's recommendation that we might privitize some of this activity to possibly achieve cost-saving economies of scale...with for profit-privitization being a conservative concept that bugs you southeastern big-city/suburbanite liberals...to no end?).

Put your money where your mouths are, guys....while explaining to us what the rest of these grandiose projects are going to cost me AFTER you fix my old system in shameful disrepair...and I'll write that letter.
(and by the way, explain to me how much House Bill 5343 was going to cost or how the "environmental damage" cited there was so much more than this project...and why we just don't throw that true MULTI-USE project on what is fast becomming 'the big project pile' also).

WE WILL NOT ACCEPT THE MMRC OR ANYBODY ELSE FOR THAT MATTER SIMPLY POPPING OUT OF NOWHERE AT A MEETING SOMEDAY IN THE FUTURE CLAIMING THAT "THIS IS NOW WHAT YOU WILL ALL PAY" FOR EVERY ONE OF THESE MASSIVE PROJECTS DISCUSSED 100% BEHIND CLOSED DOORS FOR YEARS.

I've had enough...it's not environmentally responsible...and I won't allow myself as an enthusiast to be portrayed in this manner with absolutely no assurances of properly funded resource stewardship.
 
#80 · (Edited)
I really hate to bring up
Lack of my letter being posted is the only pertinent topic here (oversight from being busy, and always "on to the next thing that's due").

I guess since you
C'mon. Pat;
OMB I am convinced
#1) Open the Michigan
Update...
For the very first time
Announcement by the DNR's Chairman
Onemanbanned
These are not pertinent to this topic, and are more closely suited to:

Our super-secret and anonymous representative council (
1 2)
OneManBanned

This is a thread about a developing NFS Project.

Can I get you to move them, Yetti?
I'll respond over there.
 
#71 · (Edited)
I guess since you refuse to be polite or remotely PC, I can drop it too?

If you have a question that's one thing, but to make an accusation without doing your research first is quite another.

Actually, funding this IS in my letter, and IS a major portion of the process. Designing the system so that minimum maintenance will be required to begin with will be a primary goal. It MUST be both financially and environmentally sustainable.

The NFS has funding sources available and so do enthusiasts.
The NFS has FAR fewer trails/routes than the Forest Plan states as it's maximum density.

So, there's funding and room for more.
If there wasn't, it wouldn't be happening.
This isn't a State Route program, it's an entirely Federal initiative.

Get the facts before you assume and accuse, it makes you look a bit silly.

Instead of arm-chair quarter-backing, why don't you put your money where your mouth is? Don't post it here. Post it in a letter to the NFS.

Prehaps, because you're so poor with your communication skills that no one will listen to you? For heaven's sake, go down to your local Community College and take a Communications course!

I've stated before that I'm willing to answer any question asked in a polite tone. Have some manners. Ask in a polite tone and I'll answer in a polite tone. Ask with added accusation, innuendo, and attacks, and I too will ignore you. Complain all you want, it won't do you any good until you figure out how to work with others and the systems.

I'm done trying to answer anything for you until you start.

Good bye OMB, good luck figuring things out. I doubt it will be easy for you with that chip on your shoulder.

I ask you:
How many possible allies have turned away from you as a result of your poor behavior?

You can add one more to that count . . . me.
I've made a month long effort to inform and calm you, and don't have any more time or patience to waste on it.

If you are uninformed, it's because you won't hear the answers given.
 
#72 · (Edited)
"...If you have a question that's one thing, but to make an accusation without doing your research first is quite another.

Actually, funding this IS in my letter...."
C'mon. Pat; I knew without even looking that 'funding' was beyond the grasp of anybody's interest or comprehension in the letters posted previously...and your letter wasn't (and still isn't) even posted to begin with.

You claim that funding of any kind hasn't even been discuused by your super-secret and anonymous MMRC to date...yet you want to take Ironman's advice in not providing the simple document that proves this. (if you haven't noticed, Ironman has been long on insults; yet short on tackling even 'one' of the scores of issues brought forth here that both he and you should certainly be up on as our representative members of that same council).

Personally?

I'm sick and tired of everybody from southeast Michigan looking to the Federal and State government to fund both their social programs and their fun on the weekends.

Please give us the details on how this new system will be funded and why you feel that funding shouldn't/hasn't nbeen discussed at your un-published MMRC meetings....and we'll all quit wondering why this information isn't availiable without bugging you... in the first place.
 
#73 ·
OMB I am convinced after reading your numerous posts over the last month (which all say the same thing over and over and over and over again) that you really have nothing to contribute to a meaningful conversation about our public lands. You continually attack the handful of people who put forth the time and effort to get involved. You fail to engage people in manner that promotes an exchange of ideas; instead you constantly bash everyone over the head with your opinion and your views, as though your way of thinking is the only correct way to look at a problem. If you don't like the way we do things, if you don't think the efforts we make are useful or if you don't see any value in our opinions, then please go find somewhere else to make your case. You are not winning any converts here, unless they are lurking and not participating in the conversation. Ironman and others have just quit responding to you because there is nothing to be gained by it. You make some valid points every once in a while, but it gets drowned out by the rhetoric and constant accusations, allegations, and innuendos.

Do you have a plan, a proposal, a course of action? Lay it out for us, tell us why you think it will work better than something that has been tried in the past, or maybe it is something that has been overlooked, or a new idea that needs to be fleshed out through an exchange of ideas. Until then, quit clogging up this forum and potentially scaring away someone new to the sport that may be interested in helping, or an experienced user of our public lands that is looking for a way to get more involved.
 
#74 ·
"OMB...Do you have a plan, a proposal, a course of action? Lay it out for us..."
#1) Open the Michigan orv advisory board back up to the general public:

The citizens of this state have been barred from offering up not one, but two applicants to this board representing orv users for over two years now; not to mention the long time period these same people were allowed to act atonommously when the search was delayed for several other sitting members for almost as long. No fresh public commentary has been allowed during that time period and to date; no new orv representive member has offered anything of substance to the meeting minutes.(an absence that actually began long before; as I can find no record of them attending before they were installed).

We cannot, for years, after repeated requests, get these people to simply publish their contact info as the snowmobilers proudly do.

We cannot force them to bring back the stenographer we had perviously to properly record who said what and when for the public record.

We cannot force them to hold meetings nor promise to publish the meeting minutes in any given time period.

We cannot force them to provide simple ground rules for public speaking at the meetings....presently forcing the public to wait 3 months before they reveal just "how it will be different" after literally years demanding that they do just that with nothing but arrogant and rude insistence that they couldn't.

There is absolutely no mechanism which forces the DNR to publish the information presented to them representing the orv community's current views on the critical matters which affect us...or do so in a timely manner. (see the MMRC document that nobody was going to by gosh publish until they were literally shamed into it).

The DNR 'gatekeeps' all requests for information regarding our representative board members; effectively allowing them to assess and quantify all interest the public may or may not have in the program itself...and pull the unannounced multi-year term extensions above off with measured risk.

This is one subject outlining exactly what you ask for.
You may not want me to continue with parts 2 through "10"...yet I think there's enough here to get you started or breed yet even more crass insults...you take your pick.
 
#76 ·
For the very first time I can say that I read and understood what onemanbanned is saying.

You spelled out that there is no form of requirement for the DNR to post meeting minutes. I agree that we should have that.

John, please, please, stop making accusations to TF. He is making progress at the NFS level and has the guidance of two different lawyers, one being the UFWDA attorney. HE IS GOING ABOUT IT THE RIGHT AND LEGAL WAY.

I really don't care if you do or don't like Dick Rany. But it irritates the S$%t out of me that you make snide remarks about him and others. You are not part of the MMRC and it pisses you off. Guess what? Neither am I. I don't know who they are and don't care. Why? Because at the end of the day I don't believe they have any voice with any clout. By making long winded posts that are 90% pissed off, it drives away others that may get involved.

I too was shut down at an ORV advisory board meeting where they refused to answer my questions. But making enemies will not get me any further.

I have a good relationship with Pete Lumborg who is the head honcho at Silver Lake. Why? Because I politely approached him after a meeting and he has continued to have dialog with me. We haven't accomplished anything but he takes the time to reply to me.

Keep in mind that this is a full size 4x4 site. Yes, there are those that use other types of ORV's for recreation but you will not get much response when discussing the 50" issues.
 
#77 · (Edited)
Posted by WhiteRhino:
"...You are not part of the MMRC...I don't know who they are and don't care. Why? Because at the end of the day I don't believe they have any voice with any clout....."

Announcement by the DNR's Chairman of (quote/unquote) "our" Michigan Orv Advisory Board (AMA Legislative Director District 14):

"..Let me assure anyone reading (that)...any decisions that are major, yellow"]WE MAKE THEM together through MMRC.
I WILL NEVER REVEAL "who" all the allies are in MMRC, some things in politics, you just don't share"[/B]

Since I've been accused of not being 'nice' to many who never deserved it....please answer me why some of you don't have the guts to loudly correct WhiteRhino on his original naieve statement....when he is obviously mis-informed?

When MMRC council members Trail Fanatic and Ironman read blatant untruths like this...and then CHOOSE to keep their mouths shut instead of simply correcting him on this council's obviously powerful and autonomous role...you can see why many of us out here have no more respect for the two of them than the blatantly arrogant author of the quote above.

Again, there are a lot of good folks out here who don't play these childish little games...and who certainly aren't shy about calling out those who DO when it affects OUR trail resource.(and before I go...where is this MMRC document expressing MY views on Michigan orv issues that TF suddenly developed this case of 'cold feet' on...or was he possibly TOLD otherwise?).
 
#79 ·
Well, I have officially been driven away from this forum. I refuse to respond to any thread that onemanbanned posts on. Being told that I am "misinformed" is totally wrong. I have drawn my own conclusions from my own observations. And I guess I am "naieve" also. No one is influencing me or needs to defend me.

I am done.
 
#81 ·
Hi Guys I streamlined a couple of threads that were doubling up on other stuff. so if you want to argue about the MMRC please do it here...Thanks.

don't blame OMB for the confusion in the thread...its my fault this time.
 
#82 · (Edited)
6) GLFWDA's ORV Route Maintenance has been opened up for Member adoption. This is a great way for members/ Clubs to make a little money...
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/dnr/November2006DraftMinutes_179305_7.pdf
(Page 2 under Orv Grant Recommendations and "Mr. Ranney"....:confused: ).

Which is yet another reason why the DNR has been forced to consider (thankfully) a little more orv non-profit 'house cleaning' in regards to subsidized grant funding.
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/dnr/DeptCommentsOnORVPLAN_178708_7.pdf (bottom of page 4 (last comment in bold).

Is anybody dry enough behind the ears to remember $100 per student subsidies coming out of the orv sticker fund...and at least one training grant sponsor charging our fund $60 per kid simply to 'administer' each class; then charging that same parent to attend them? (or the 'task force' that later approached the state with a 'revised' $90 per kid proposal...then cried when the state simply called their bluff and turned the whole shebang over to law endorcement for a lot less per student just to get more of these kids 'some' kind of training as opposed to them perpetually waiting for the extremely limited 'free' classes that were being subsidized each year by sticker buyers).

By the way; your kid wants one of these bad (from the Polaris Ranger Club forum http://www.prcforum.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=255 )...and would sell your full-size if you weren't around to get one...so you just might want to keep up on the glorified golf cart and smaller machine "shared trail" issues also.
 
#106 ·
Is anybody dry enough behind the ears to remember $100 per student subsidies coming out of the orv sticker fund...and at least one training grant sponsor charging our fund $60 per kid simply to 'administer' each class; then charging that same parent to attend them? (or the 'task force' that later approached the state with a 'revised' $90 per kid proposal...then cried when the state simply called their bluff and turned the whole shebang over to law endorcement for a lot less per student just to get more of these kids 'some' kind of training as opposed to them perpetually waiting for the extremely limited 'free' classes that were being subsidized each year by sticker buyers).
Are you talking about kids or adolescents? I was 10 when I took my first orv course, so I think I was between a kid and an adolescent.

who were the instructors at the time administering the classes? Maybe one of them lived in our neighborhood.
 
#83 · (Edited)
OMB:

I see you're still here.
You said something about being banned and I didn't see you post for a while.

As long as you are, let's get back to this:

http://www.greatlakes4x4.com/showpost.php?p=473184&postcount=26

Specifically:

"...I can post it when I get time, but admit that this is relatively low on my priority list right now. I can either spend time uploading all this, or I can spend that time doing something to further the sport.... it takes time to scan each page, upload all of the pages to photobucket, and then link them all here again....."

Since you're referring me to a 'revised' document published almost two years ago and this public has not seen a publicized document regarding (quote/unquote) "our" opinions from any Michigan orv representative group since that time and before....we can certainly see why this is an "either/or" choice for you and your arrogantly anonymous 'buddies' on this council.


This document has been linked to the DNR website the ENTIRE time it's been a topic.
Link:
http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7-153-10365_15070-124024--,00.html

I'm still willing to post the MMRC response, but it's a bit of a moot point now. The DNR has chosen to pull the Study from the Agenda. Their new intention is to wait until several other initiatives area completed and roll them all in to one comprehensive document to have a new public comment period, sometime in the future.

Current situation is, essentially, postponed.
 
#86 · (Edited)
OMB:...As long as you are, let's get back to this:

http://www.greatlakes4x4.com/showpost.php?p=473184&postcount=26

Specifically:

Trail Fanatic:
"...I can post it when I get time, but admit that this is relatively low on my priority list right now. I can either spend time uploading all this, or I can spend that time doing something to further the sport.... it takes time to scan each page, upload all of the pages to photobucket, and then link them all here again....."


OMB:
Since you're referring me to a 'revised' document published almost two years ago and this public has not seen a publicized document regarding (quote/unquote) "our" opinions from any Michigan orv representative group since that time and before....we can certainly see why this is an "either/or" choice for you and your arrogantly anonymous 'buddies' on this council.


Trail Fanatic switching the focus yet again:
"...This document has been linked to the DNR website the ENTIRE time it's been a topic.
Link:
http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7-153-10365_15070-124024--,00.html


OMB:
Pat,
I've underlined the words "our" opinions for you above to illustrate the fact that the document you link following it...is anything but.
If you need further clarification as to how the state's position is currently being published...while the COMBINED orv community's isn't AND NEVER HAS BEEN SINCE '68 (with the MMRC's reign as our representative but anonymous 'gods' included)...then I'd be glad to 'clear this up' for you even further.

Again, I guess this type of bogus 'redirection' is designed to somehow make me effectively look bad and the yet to be published MMRC look like 'heroes'...yet I'm telling you, Pat...I think that folks can actually discern the difference.

"...I'm still willing to post the MMRC response, but..."

(lol):sonicjay: ...Pat, this simple request to allow us mere peons out here to view our own submitted opinions on critical orv issues has been on the table for how long now?...and your excuse "today" for not simply publishing our community-wide and held beliefs as to how this valuable resource should be maintained is now what???

"..but it's a bit of a moot point now...."

Aaaahhhhhh!!!.....oh yes, and let every one of us out here assure you, Pat....we all oh so much understand! :thumb:

"...The DNR has chosen to pull the Study from the Agenda. Their new intention is to wait until several other initiatives area completed and roll them all in to one comprehensive document to have a new public comment period, "]sometime in the future...."


You guys are a joke....and I'm honestly sorry to have to be the only one willing to just come out and tell you this....but it's the truth.

Get that document up here, Pat; or risk yet even more good people jumping ship on you and your arrogant council's anonymous b.s.....because that's exactly what's about to happen.
You guys have weeded out more good people who actually care about the stewardship of this resource for the purpose of concentrating your individual power over it....than a nybody in the history of American motorized recreation.

"..Current situation is, essentially, postponed...."

And that's that, folks.
 
#91 · (Edited)
My comments are in RED:

Trail Fanatic switching the focus yet again:
"...This document has been linked to the DNR website the ENTIRE time it's been a topic.
Link:
http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7...4024--,00.html

Switching focus?! I’m the person bring focus back to the issue after it’s been quiet for weeks. You complained about the Draft Forest Plan not being public. I pointed out that you were mistaken, and that it was linked to the DNR website all along. No switch there.

OMB:
Pat,
I've underlined the words "our" opinions for you above to illustrate the fact that the document you link following it...is anything but.
If you need further clarification as to how the state's position is currently being published...while the COMBINED orv community's isn't AND NEVER HAS BEEN SINCE '68 (with the MMRC's reign as our representative but anonymous 'gods' included)...then I'd be glad to 'clear this up' for you even further.

I explained before, but was apparently ineffective, so I‘ll try again. . .

The MMRC is comprised of, and represents, the 22,000 enthusiasts who care enough to join a statewide association for their given type of ORV – cycle, quad, or 4x4 (No RUV association exists yet). If you are not a member of a statewide association, then the MMRC does not represent you, nor do they purport to. There are approximately 350,000 registered ORVs in Michigan according to the SOS. There are approximately 1.5 MILLION OHV enthusiasts in Michigan according to the NFS study done by Cordell. Perhaps you fall into the 98.5% of enthusiasts who the MMRC does NOT represent (Imagine what a 1.5 million member Association could accomplish!). MMRC Representatives report to the Association BOD who has granted them the authority to represent that Association at Council meetings, not you. Association BODs report to their members, not you. I choose to try to answer your questions (when I can make sense of them) because an informed public is more likely to get involved.

If you DO belong to a statewide Association, you should be asking ALL of these questions of their BOD. This is actually the wrong format for these discussions.

"...I'm still willing to post the MMRC response, but..."

(lol) ...Pat, this simple request to allow us mere peons out here to view our own submitted opinions on critical orv issues has been on the table for how long now?...and your excuse "today" for not simply publishing our community-wide and held beliefs as to how this valuable resource should be maintained is now what???

I’ve underlined where you were mistaken in this section. The MMRC Comments are not representative of YOUR views. They are what the Association’s designated representatives could agree to submit together. Other comments that could not be agreed upon would have to have been submitted by the Association sponsoring the questioned clause on its own, without the MMRC’s approval or name attached.

Oh, and the ‘excuse’ (reason) is still the same as it was weeks ago . . . I tried and failed. I could only get the first page of it to post, none of the others, so I was asking for a volunteer to email it to so they could post it. The more you berate me for trying to help you, the less likely I am to do so, though. As I stated above, I answer to the GLFWDA BOD, not you. MMRC is NOT public, and is not required to inform or represent the desires of those enthusiasts who do not even care enough about motorized recreation to support a state level association with a membership fee and another body that can be added to the 22,000 count.


"..but it's a bit of a moot point now...."

Aaaahhhhhh!!!.....oh yes, and let every one of us out here assure you, Pat....we all oh so much understand!

The Department made a decision; I passed along the information. It seems simple enough to ‘understand’.

"...The DNR has chosen to pull the Study from the Agenda. Their new intention is to wait until several other initiatives area completed and roll them all in to one comprehensive document to have a new public comment period, sometime in the future...."

You guys are a joke....and I'm honestly sorry to have to be the only one willing to just come out and tell you this....but it's the truth.

If we’re such a joke, why are you so all-fired up and worried about what we think?
I guess it must be a joke with one heck of a punch line.

Get that document up here, Pat; or risk yet even more good people jumping ship on you and your arrogant council's anonymous b.s.....because that's exactly what's about to happen.

“Other” people? Who? You’re the only one asking.


You guys have weeded out more good people who actually care about the stewardship of this resource for the purpose of concentrating your individual power over it....than anybody in the history of American motorized recreation.

I counter that you are turning off more people with these nonsensical postings while doing nothing to further any of the motorized sports, than the MMRC might turn off while conducting the business of improving opportunities in Michigan (which I doubt they have done – except for you).

"..Current situation is, essentially, postponed...."

And that's that, folks.
Finally, you have issued a statement that I can understand AND agree with. . .
That IS that.
 
#94 · (Edited)
Can I be next?

I LOVE the entertainment value of watching you turn off everyone you come in contact with!

:sonicjay:

It seems like a sane man would question his approach after awhile, but not you . . . :miff:

You're like the Energizer Bunny. You keep going, and going, and going . . . :tonka:

It's really quite laughable, after a person realizes that you don't have a clue, don't want a clue, and wouldn't know what to do with a clue if someone gave one to you.

( I normally don't like to be "Un-PC, but this is getting down right funny)
 
#96 · (Edited)
hey banned guy,

Can you please take a sip of some kind of alcoholic beverage and convey your thoughts like a normal person does so others can figure out what you're trying to get at?

:sonicjay: :rock:

So I'm right?

His posts are hard to decipher?

. . . and I really try to get what he's trying to convey!
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top