Our super-secret and anonymous representative council - Page 7 - Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest

Go Back   Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest > 4x4 Land Use > Rules, Regulations, Trail, and ORV Park Chat
GL4x4 Live! GL4x4 Casino

greatlakes4x4.com is the premier Great Lakes 4x4 Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.
Search
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old April 20th, 2007, 08:44 PM   #121
brewmenn
Grumpy old man.
 
brewmenn's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Inkster, MI
Posts: 10,536
iTrader: (9)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

Is he gone? did I miss all the fun? I've been busy and ignoring this part of the forum.

As far as I'm concerned the trail widening bill discussed was a bad idea. It would have spend lots of money to make many trails wides for the benifit of a small number of users and would have decreased the level of enjoyment on the trails for a large number of users who don't want wide trails. The 50 inch standard was created at a time when thats how wide most machines were. So now people want to make them wider just because there are wider machines? I sympathize with anyone with one of these things that wants to ride on the trails but where does it end? So we widen the trails to 60" so someone with a Rzr, Rhino, or Mule can fit down... and along comes someone with a Arctic Cat Prowler 650 at 61" ( http://www.rc-trucks.org/recreation-...hicles-ruv.htm )... now what... do we change the regulation again and head out with the chain saw to accomidate them too? Where does it end? I don't think that just because companys keep coming out with wider machines we should be making trails wider for them.

Here is my solution...

There should be 3 type of trails... motorcycle trails at X" wide, ATV trails at Y" wide, and truck trails at Z" wide. What X, Y, and Z are should be something decided with much input from the trails users and consideration of all the intended users of the trail type in question.

I vote to keep the truck trails at 72" because I like them tight, but others might disagree.
brewmenn is online now   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old April 30th, 2007, 07:44 PM   #122
TOPWOP
www.michatv.com
 
Join Date: 04-26-07
Location: Michigan
Posts: 133
iTrader: (0)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

GOOD!

Bill

Last edited by TOPWOP; April 30th, 2009 at 09:10 PM.
TOPWOP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 30th, 2007, 08:41 PM   #123
Yetti
Buy a Fiat! Save the UAW!
 
Yetti's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: 20 minutes south of Hell...
Posts: 14,387
iTrader: (10)
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Default

Hi Bill, glad to see you found your way over. as for BB/OMB to my knowlage he's not banned. I asked him to be nice thats all.
__________________
Yetti
Yetti is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 7th, 2007, 12:18 PM   #124
RockyTop
Gimme the Busket!
 
RockyTop's Avatar
 
Join Date: 05-23-06
Location: Redford, MI
Posts: 184
iTrader: (0)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OneManBanned View Post
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?
I just lost three pitons and two carabiners on this wall of text and I am now fresh out of rat's asses.
RockyTop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 30th, 2009, 09:43 PM   #125
TOPWOP
www.michatv.com
 
Join Date: 04-26-07
Location: Michigan
Posts: 133
iTrader: (0)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

As for the MMRC?

They have no legal entity at all in the State of Michigan..Dont get me wrong, Dick has done ALOT of good for our sport, but the fact is,Dick goes around telling our State Reps that HE represents over 20k diversified ORV user's when in fact, there are

*NO public meetings or discussions for this MMRC,
*NO minutes of ANY kind for these MMRC meetings,
*NOTHING on file with the State of Michigan as a 501-c3 or any other type club statis
*No political platform [NO house of Board members ]

MMRC has no legal bearings at all in Michigan IMO. Just a couple of guys that get together once in awhile and share the /issues/opinions/concerns/ of their sport with others. When a Bill gets fired-up like HB 4323, Dick than goes to our Reps [ just like MANY of us did ]and tells them that he's the Coordinator for the MMRC, who represents over 20k ORV user's within the State of Michigan. It worked VERY well with HB 4323,which is now PA 240..

Im not at liberty to tell you guys what he has brewing for our sport just yet, [ hint--it has to do with ORV Sticker's ] but I'll say this much----it AINT going to be GOOD..

He will not be able to get away with this 20k MMRC bullcrap on this one.

And those of you who dont know ONEMANBANNED? One must ''try'' to understand the YEARS of FRUSTRATIONS that this guy has gone thur dealing with the politics of our sport.For years, I to have been a critic of this guy myself for being too impatient. HOWEVER, after MANY years of deciet MYSELF from our very own MDNR and ''so called leaders'', I can understand WHY he feels the way he does on SEVERAL issues and topics.Sometimes one can ''feel'' his displeasure directly in the posts he writes.. He is absolutley correct on MANY of the issues he brings to the table and this forum.Those who have not experienced his YEARS of frustrations, can not understand him.

He's not right all the time,but he sure has many valid issues. Five years ago, I accused him of being impatient for many of the very same topics he brings up today, but five years later,much of his impatience has a VALID stance.

Last edited by TOPWOP; May 1st, 2009 at 07:51 AM.
TOPWOP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 27th, 2009, 01:51 PM   #126
ScOoTeR
hoo dat. wat.
 
ScOoTeR's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-09-05
Location: Howell
Posts: 21,607
iTrader: (36)
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Default

Update: Still no 60" vehicles allowed on ORV trails.

__________________
@clarkstoncracker
ScOoTeR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 4th, 2009, 11:16 AM   #127
TOPWOP
www.michatv.com
 
Join Date: 04-26-07
Location: Michigan
Posts: 133
iTrader: (0)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

QUOTE*
Update: Still no 60" vehicles allowed on ORV trails.
END QUOTE*

ORV trails are designed to be 50'' wide..With that said, it is illegal to try and put any ORV that is wider than 50'' on a trail of this type..If the ORV you are riding is under 50'' wide, you are LEGAL to ride on a ORV trail-----period!

ORVs that are wider than 50'' need to operate on a ORV Route..

Todays ATVs are much bigger than in the past..I have long been a proponent of widening the ORV trails from 50 inches to 60 inches and to allow ORVs under 60 inches to use them.
TOPWOP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 8th, 2009, 03:21 AM   #128
Trail_Fanatic
Member since 1994
 
Trail_Fanatic's Avatar
 
Join Date: 03-25-06
Location: Muskegon and Oceana Counties
Posts: 3,175
iTrader: (0)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TOPWOP View Post
ORV trails are designed to be 50'' wide..With that said, it is illegal to try and put any ORV that is wider than 50'' on a trail of this type..If the ORV you are riding is under 50'' wide, you are LEGAL to ride on a ORV trail-----period!

ORVs that are wider than 50'' need to operate on a ORV Route..

Todays ATVs are much bigger than in the past..I have long been a proponent of widening the ORV trails from 50 inches to 60 inches and to allow ORVs under 60 inches to use them.
Unless the ORV Trail has been designated on an existing State Forest Road, in which case if you are SOS liscenced, can run it in 2WD and fit, you are legal.

Otherwise, it would be like saying that those County Roads that are designated as part of the MCCCT are only to be ridden by motorcycles.
Trail_Fanatic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 8th, 2009, 08:21 AM   #129
ScOoTeR
hoo dat. wat.
 
ScOoTeR's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-09-05
Location: Howell
Posts: 21,607
iTrader: (36)
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TOPWOP View Post
Todays ATVs are much bigger than in the past..I have long been a proponent of widening the ORV trails from 50 inches to 60 inches and to allow ORVs under 60 inches to use them.
You want to have a state full of ORV routes? That's what the 50" trails will end up looking like.

Maybe I should reconsider my position that singling out some of the ORV trails as "motorcycle-only" was unfair. If people are working to widen all ORV trails to 60", there won't be anyplace left to enjoy singletrack.

Trail?

You want Pathways.
__________________
@clarkstoncracker
ScOoTeR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 13th, 2009, 06:04 PM   #130
TOPWOP
www.michatv.com
 
Join Date: 04-26-07
Location: Michigan
Posts: 133
iTrader: (0)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

QUOTE*
Unless the ORV Trail has been designated on an existing State Forest Road, in which case if you are SOS liscenced, can run it in 2WD and fit, you are legal.
END QUOTE*

If the ORV trail you speak of is part of a State forest road, than by virtue of State Statue that defines ORV Trial and ORV Route,this designated State Forest Trail that is wide enough to fit a regular vehicle down it should be marked as ORV Route and not ORV Trail.. This is VERY misleading and very confusing to those that dont understand the differance between ORV Trail and ORV Route.

QUOTE by Scooter*
You want to have a state full of ORV routes? That's what the 50" trails will end up looking like.

Maybe I should reconsider my position that singling out some of the ORV trails as "motorcycle-only" was unfair. If people are working to widen all ORV trails to 60", there won't be anyplace left to enjoy singletrack.
END QUOTE*

Nope, not exactly my position on this.. I do beleive that the cyclist should have some 24 inch ORV trails for their enjoyment too..What I am completely against is the LUOD or Land Use Order of Director that was put in place about a year ago..Not only do I completely feel that the DNR Director overstepped her bounds with this LUOD, I beleive that it is a clear-cut violation of State Staue that defines what a ORV trail is and what a Designated trail is..NOBODY should EVER be able to put new laws in place with no regard to State Statue, and this is exactly what she did IMO..This is the samething as saying that for the last 20 years, Michigan has a State Statue that allowed ANY boat that was under 20 feet to operate in the Saginaw Bay, and today, the DNR Director puts out a LUOD and says that only RED boats that are under 20 feet can operate on the Saginaw Bay ''without'' changing the Statue first..

Today, an ATVer can receive a citation for operating on a ''cycle only'' trail EVEN if the trail itself is marked as a 24 inch trail, but in reality, is plenty wide enough to fit a ATV down it.. This is wrong IMO..First, this type of trail should be re-marked as an ORV Trail with the ATV insignia on it [ 50 inch or less trail ] and not marked as a cycle only trail.

Would I like to see a few trails go to 60 inches wide? Sure would..But not all of them.
TOPWOP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 13th, 2009, 06:35 PM   #131
whiterhino
I'm not old, honest...
 
whiterhino's Avatar
 
Join Date: 03-07-06
Location: Davisburg MI
Posts: 22,028
iTrader: (21)
Mentioned: 23 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TOPWOP View Post
Today, an ATVer can receive a citation for operating on a ''cycle only'' trail EVEN if the trail itself is marked as a 24 inch trail, but in reality, is plenty wide enough to fit a ATV down it.. This is wrong IMO..First, this type of trail should be re-marked as an ORV Trail with the ATV insignia on it [ 50 inch or less trail ] and not marked as a cycle only trail.

Would I like to see a few trails go to 60 inches wide? Sure would..But not all of them.
I agree, if you can fit and you have spent the money on an ORV sticker, I think you should be allowed. Same goes for full size trucks on current 50" trails.
whiterhino is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 13th, 2009, 06:42 PM   #132
Yetti
Buy a Fiat! Save the UAW!
 
Yetti's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: 20 minutes south of Hell...
Posts: 14,387
iTrader: (10)
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Default

me and the wife and kids are reveiwing what we want in our trail machines. I have been looking at UTVs and the majority are 56-57" wide and the Rangers are 60" wide that the wife likes. I can see the need for 60" trail but then again they would do fine on routes if there was more of them. I hate having the trees brushing againest the front as you push through the woods. it can get tight as heck and the state seems to have an over abundance of russian olive and locust trees...ouch!
__________________
Yetti
Yetti is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 13th, 2009, 10:28 PM   #133
Trail_Fanatic
Member since 1994
 
Trail_Fanatic's Avatar
 
Join Date: 03-25-06
Location: Muskegon and Oceana Counties
Posts: 3,175
iTrader: (0)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TOPWOP View Post
This is VERY misleading and very confusing to those that dont understand the differance between ORV Trail and ORV Route.
Agreed! Along with MUCH of the rest of the written legislation as it currently stands. There are WAY too many vague terms or terms in common use in the general public that are defined differenly than "normal" for the purposes of Part 811, and MOST importantly way, way too many things left completely undefined and entirely up to the Department. (What to you legally call an old two track road left over from the logging days on State land that isn't passable by grandma's Buick [and maybe never was] and not marked Route?)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yetti View Post
. . . if there was more of them.
BINGO!
Trail_Fanatic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 14th, 2009, 05:51 AM   #134
TOPWOP
www.michatv.com
 
Join Date: 04-26-07
Location: Michigan
Posts: 133
iTrader: (0)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Yah,
I'd also go along with what Yetti is saying about the need for ALOT more ORV Routes..With that stated, if we had more Routes, than we would not really have the need to cut a few 50 inch trails out to 60 inches IMO..My 800 Can-Am Max is already at 50 inches wide and even alot of our 50 inch trails are not even close to the contracted 50 inch trail width because most of them are maintained by cyclist groups who really have little interest in anything wider than their 24 inch trail.

And I also completely agree 100% with Trail Fanatic with regards to

QUOTE*
Agreed! Along with MUCH of the rest of the written legislation as it currently stands. There are WAY too many vague terms or terms in common use in the general public that are defined differenly than "normal" for the purposes of Part 811, and MOST importantly way, way too many things left completely undefined and entirely up to the Department.
END QUOTE*

I once got a student's parent out of a citation written by the MDNR..Female DNR officer writes the parent [ who is not even present on this trail ride ] a citation for her 13 yr old not being under the direct visual supervision of someone 18 years or older while operating an ORV.. Turns out that the 13 year old was riding his ATV with his 17 year old brother and the female officer stated that he had to be supervised by an adult that was 18 years or older..

I called the Officer and requested that she indicate to me WHERE in PA 451 does it define adult visual supervision as 18years old???? Plain and simple----it does not indicate ANY age what so ever..Female DNR calls me back 45 minutes later and told me that the ticket was DISMISSED..

So with this stated, Trail Fanatic is right, we need to overhaul 811 but we need to ''watch'' out for those ''special interest'' groups and their ''hidden agenga's'' [ few cyclist ] who dont want new legistlaton to allow the operation of ATVs on Michigans trail systems at the age of 6 years old, but yet they seem to beleive that its OK for their kids at ANY age to operate a dirt bike on the same trails they dont want ATVs and kids on..

You can bet your asz, im going to be watching this one closely.
TOPWOP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 14th, 2009, 10:53 AM   #135
ScOoTeR
hoo dat. wat.
 
ScOoTeR's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-09-05
Location: Howell
Posts: 21,607
iTrader: (36)
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TOPWOP View Post
Nope, not exactly my position on this.. I do beleive that the cyclist should have some 24 inch ORV trails for their enjoyment too..What I am completely against is the LUOD or Land Use Order of Director that was put in place about a year ago..Not only do I completely feel that the DNR Director overstepped her bounds with this LUOD, I beleive that it is a clear-cut violation of State Staue that defines what a ORV trail is and what a Designated trail is..NOBODY should EVER be able to put new laws in place with no regard to State Statue, and this is exactly what she did IMO..This is the samething as saying that for the last 20 years, Michigan has a State Statue that allowed ANY boat that was under 20 feet to operate in the Saginaw Bay, and today, the DNR Director puts out a LUOD and says that only RED boats that are under 20 feet can operate on the Saginaw Bay ''without'' changing the Statue first..

Today, an ATVer can receive a citation for operating on a ''cycle only'' trail EVEN if the trail itself is marked as a 24 inch trail, but in reality, is plenty wide enough to fit a ATV down it.. This is wrong IMO..First, this type of trail should be re-marked as an ORV Trail with the ATV insignia on it [ 50 inch or less trail ] and not marked as a cycle only trail.

Would I like to see a few trails go to 60 inches wide? Sure would..But not all of them.
Thank you for clearing that up.

I talked to a couple different ATV groups on Tomahawk the last time I was up there. You could sense they had run-ins with other asshole cyclists before by their body language and first words when we pulled up next to them. Like you, I imagine, I try to be an ambassador for the sport and cyclists on the trails and am very friendly. I asked them if they knew they were on a cycle-only trail and that some cyclists they experience will be exceedingly rude and if a conservation officer catches them, they could get issued a ticket.

One group knew, and didn't care, but had been riding the area for years and years without incident (like Ironman probably has) and the other group had no idea, as they were riding form a campsite and not a trailhead.

Sigh. I understand your frustration. Most of Tomahawk is plenty wide for everybody, as is most of the new "motorcycle only" trails and it is unfair to designate an ATV trail to motorcycle only. I wish they would just have decided to reroute an MC trail around the ORV trail so both users could enjoy - Tin Cup comes to mind as an excellent example.

I apologize for assuming you wanted every ORV trail to be widened to 60".
__________________
@clarkstoncracker
ScOoTeR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 15th, 2009, 02:30 PM   #136
signman
Member
 
Join Date: 11-19-06
Location: harrision/ mich
Posts: 76
iTrader: (0)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

What is really sad about the Tomahawk area is that there is now a route to connect all of the atv and cycle only trails, but due to lack of maps in the woods, and maint on the atv portion ( it looks more like a cycle trail ) leaving the rider confused. This could be a great area but due to a lack of leadership by the Dept its just a cluster of lines on a map.
signman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 15th, 2009, 08:03 PM   #137
TOPWOP
www.michatv.com
 
Join Date: 04-26-07
Location: Michigan
Posts: 133
iTrader: (0)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Paul, [ signman ] QUOTE*
What is really sad about the Tomahawk area is that there is now a route to connect all of the atv and cycle only trails, but due to lack of maps in the woods, and maint on the atv portion ( it looks more like a cycle trail ) leaving the rider confused. This could be a great area but due to a lack of leadership by the Dept its just a cluster of lines on a map.
END QUOTE*

Your last post is yet ANOTHER reason to add to a long list of WHY I do not currently support an increase to 30.00 per ORV sticker fee for next year..

The MDNR tells us they dont have enough of our user $$ to run our sport unless they get this 30.00 ORV sticker next year, all the while, they play us like idiots with the Tomahawk trail and many other area's within our sport. They dont seem to understand that they have lost ALOT of credability with ALOT of veteran ORV users in Michigan.Nobody beleives them too much anymore.

Until they are ready to play on a leval playing field, they can stick their 30.00 ORV sticker where the sun dont shine.
TOPWOP is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest > 4x4 Land Use > Rules, Regulations, Trail, and ORV Park Chat

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:36 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright 2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd. Runs best on HiVelocity Hosting.
Page generated in 0.53086 seconds with 71 queries