Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="2TrakR, post: 862077, member: 27322"] John, Here's your posts with my responses. Please take your time to address each and every one. Please do not use the excuse like on TT where you claimed it may take weeks to respond. If I've missed any points, it was unintentional and I urge you to bring those items up. In your opinion. If you don't disagree with the data, then why would you say anything about it? Just as you do not agree with it, you are speaking up, if you did agree with it, would you be speaking up anyway? No one has demanded anything. There has been a proposal made to scientifically study the effects of an old trail being closed down and a new one put in it's place. This would show if the old trail could be "regenerated" or put back to a state prior to the trail (can the forest grow back in or not). If we can show the forest will grow back in, then we should be able to close worn out trails and put in new trails to improve the riding experience. A major concern with closing of any trail is getting that mileage back on the ground - historically we have only lost trail mileage. We are in support of parallel trails. A bulldozer is proper equipment only in your opinion. What 100 miles of single track did we propose to grab? Maintenance is done with similar tools on a similar schedule but is for signing and brushing only. This is to keep the trail at least rideable. It has nothing to do with grading/grooming of the trail. The damage being referred to, although I'm guessing at where you came up with the term "damaged trails", is the over-use of the trail system. Excessive use damages the system and is justification for more trails. A scientific study of closing trails and putting in the same or more miles of new trail is something of value. This study may help to get the DNR to allow more new trail. We already know that new trails will stay in better shape for longer periods of use than old, well established, trails will. If the $180K being referenced is the amount of money contracted with the CCC for trail maintenance, it would be prudent to know that money goes to 12 organizations underneath the CCC (the CCC gets none of it). Similarly to what the USFS, DNR and other groups get. Well of course the cyclists do not want to debate the topic - they are in FULL agreement with you. We want parallel trails. (this is the part where we are all in agreement, yet John continues to argue the point) While I'm pleased you've been able to figure out what you think is the CCC's budget, what you fail to determine is that not a dime of trail maintenance money is used for the CCC's Executive Director's salary. The CCC, as an organization, makes no money off of trail maintenance; all money is paid directly out to the chapters doing the actual work. Probably because you are the lone soul who feels this way. First you claim that the open position was an ORV associate then when you find out otherwise, that it was a public "non-ORV" person, you change your tune to _blame_ the cyclists for your lack of reading comprehension. I must admit that I did not know there was an open position nor what is was for until you brought the topic up on TT; if you have evidence to the contrary, evidence like a printout that clearly shows the board position was originally an ORV position, then please show me so I may be corrected. How would the State's revenue be increased if we ran bulldozer's down each & every trail? To which other trail systems do you compare us to? Ahh, but you have. "Minimum width trail" & "should have used a bulldozer" tells me you do indeed want special consideration for your machine; you just don't like to say it outright and use the guise of arrogance on other's behalf to mask your own. It's quite easy for you to make the above statement when you've not provided a counterpoint to any of the items I brought up in just the TT thread. I searched for the quote you used above and even with corrected spelling, Google gave me no hints. Can you expound on what the "Huron Foresat Land Grab" is? Is there an impact study being done and if so on who's bequest? I asked God, but so far no response. I will pray again tonight. I also did a bible search, but no luck there either. If it were one of my shining examples, I would have probably brought it up. Since I'm uncertain what this land grab proposal is/was I can't say for certain. No data has been promised, but one is underway. Doubtful you will agree with it's outcome because you have a very different view of things. Given that you've not ridden on the MI public trail system in at least 3 years probably accounts for your skewed view. So even if a study was done, and you were happy with it, it wouldn't mean anything 'cause nobody would listen to it. That's what I call putting yourself in a lose-lose position. No matter what happens you will be unhappy with the result and be able to blame somebody else. First the plan and date is outdate and then your are aghast that there is a new study underway. Given your position I'm surprised you are displeased a new study is being done, given the chance of more accurate data. That's an easy question. The same reason you are on most people's ignore list here, same reason that ATVOffRoad called the cops on you, same reason most everyone who meets you thinks you are not a person worth taking up their time. You want more accurate data as well, why would you be concerned if we want the same thing? I'm guessing that his answer was no because this study did have less funding that the '99 one. I suppose he could have been lying to you just because he felt like it. Repeat question, repeat answer. You feel it was underfunded and do not agree with the original data. Your opinion. Show me something contrary to the original study, something that backs your position up. Somebody tells you what they want and then you rip on them for wanting that. Many people do not want to drive 2+ hours minimum for an ORV riding experience. I can certainly agree with their position. Please do not blame them for your view on the current ORV plan update, the two items are separate issues. Again with your bulldozer approach. See above. I can comment on the cash cow issue though. The CCC has grant sponsors that cover the entire state, east/west/LP/UP. Those trails immediately by you are maintained by the USFS, nothing to do with the CCC. As to the money aspect, I just got my club's check for the trails we maintain. $3762.00 for ~80 miles of ORV Trail. That's 10 or so guys' effort on 8+ separate days. Even if you said 5 guys for 80 hours, they would be only getting $9.50 per hour and that's without consideration for benefits such as insurance, FICA and all that fun stuff. This is where Bill G's argument for privatizing trail maintenance gets me - who is he going to find that will do the "quality" of work he wants for this kind of money? When I've read the CCC's list of priorities, this item has always been low on the list. Obviously, then, they do not propose this item first. However it is high on the list from many riders in that area (again, I agree with them). Even if they were to create such an area, no loss in trail maintenance money is foreseeable. So even if southeast Michigan residents wants a riding area close to them, they are to blame for your opinion of our trail system. Are they good or bad for their wants? Obviously you've done the research on your hypothesis, since I have not, please give me the answer to who will end up running/owning this magical land. Why or why not would this be good? How would it compare to "The Mounds"? I looked for a public position on this, but can only find your statements, statements that allude to many things, but state nothing. You tell me why it's not time to start whistle blowing. Ahh, back to your minimum width trails. Did you not just say that you never wanted special consideration for your vehicle? Better yet, now you say no to parallel trails, something you clearly said yes to only hours earlier. Which is it, yes or no to parallel trails. Turn the discussion, eh? I asked you on the TT thread repeatedly to tell me what would be better equipment, what was wrong with what we have and what was needed to fix it. You never responded. Here's your chance now to give your thoughts on what is wrong with our trail system, what would fix it and how that should be accomplished? I have hard evidence that refutes this statement regarding new trails. Prove me wrong; as a refresher I point to the new trails put in around St Helen. Usage creates whoops, the more usage, the more whoops. ATVs will generate more whoops then bikes under identical circumstances due simply to available tire contact patch (the ATV has much more contact with the ground). They both still create whoops. Michigan trails are mostly sand, something that will "whoop out" quickly. The trail graders used by the CCC do an excellent job of removing those whoops, but they can only to a decent job when conditions are favorable. Just like any other type of earth moving equipment - if you move dry sand, it will whoop out within days, but if you move it when damp/wet it will compact and stay in that condition (ie "de-whooped) for much longer. What is not being done properly now and how should it be done? Ahh, so five years ago one disgruntled DNR person (who may or may have not been familiar with the ORV Program) gave you his spin on things. You took his statement and ran with it, regardless of what anyone else had to say. First, the CCC does not have a lobbyist. Second, follow the money and see where it goes, I've already said where it goes, now it's your turn to tell me. Third, what is modern trial maintenance equipment? Fourth, the CCC never threatened the DNR, however they did opt to not sign the grant contract when language was not changed; language that would - and has - benefited all grant sponsors; language that was legally required due to a lawsuit. Your turn, you gave your points, and there's my counterpoints/additional info, now you get to show me what is wrong with the system (what needs fixed), how that should be accomplished and with what; also tell me who threatened who and why it happened. ..continued in next post..--> [/QUOTE]

Verification: Which ocean is California closest to?