Changes @ the CCC

[2TrakR]

Just a little FYI, I know many of you call Bill Chapin with questions and what not, some even post his cell phone number here. Anyway:

Bill Chapin is leaving his position as Executive Director for the Cycle Conservation Club of Michigan. Bill has been an integral part of the CCC for many years and he will be missed. We want to thank Bill for his many contributions and would like to wish Bill the best of luck in his future endeavors. The CCC will be conducting a search for a person to fill this important role going forward.

Our phone # 517-569-9999 is still lit and normally has a live person on the receiving end. Email correspondence can be directed to [email protected] or any Board member's address listed on the site.

 

[Godzuki]

woodsy for president

 

[YZMAN400]

I heard about that yesterday. Quite a suprise.

 

[3KDXXR2]

I 2nd The motion

 

[woodsy]

Sorry to hear the news about Bill Chapin! Those shoes are going to be very hard to fill and he will be MISSED!!! I hope there is a farewell party being planned?????

WOE WOE WOE you guys!!! I have spent my whole life trying to hide from those green trucks while enjoying our land out there - not sure that I can change.. :nener:
Besides, about the first time I had to stay inside and do paper work while Kadie was staring at me thru the office window I may be caught up in a "deriliction of duty" charge :yikes:
Thanks for the vote of confidence though guys!!! Nice to be loved ;)

I nominate my HERO - YOUNG TED and his pretty wife - CONNIE - as first lady.. If you win Ted I get the first dance, NO NOT WITH YOU TIMER - WITH CONNIE!!!!!!!!!!
Thanks for posting this 2trakr!!
Woodsy

 

[70 marlin]

Bill will be missed! "2TrakR for prez!"

 

[Z-8]

In July, my 11 yr. old son and I rode the trail tour put on by the Jackson Trail Riders. We rode 125 mi. in two days. Eat, sleep, ride, repeat. My kind of weekend!
I would like to thank Mr. Chapin for all he has done for our sport!
Thanks RUZZ

 

[INCA]

Woodsy - Thanks, and no thank you. I'm so controversial a huge bomb would be peanuts in comparison. As for the first dance, we already had that one.

 

[salgeek]

Why is he leaving the post?

 

[TheBottomLine]

Why is he leaving the post?

The conversation ends there, my friend....as it has many times with my first questions years ago regarding why Chapin and Rondeau didn't pull this community together when the job needed to be done. Following questions had to do with why our 'second' incarnation of organized light four wheelers (AOR) flat out refused to take our unity related questions to Bill; along with questions (such as yours) which just plain asked what Bill or Dick were doing on any daily basis between one-way 'announcement type' orv advisory board meetings.(when they weren't being 'cancelled' by your(our?) own guys).

And with $4 million of frozen sticker money on the line; not to mention $600,000 per year of guaranteed training money...the deserved answer to your simple question above has about as much chance of getting answered as the simple ones I've tried to put forward for going on 6 years now.

As with Rondeau; it is not to be QUESTIONED what these leaders actually 'do' on a daily basis or even so much as 'why' they (supposedly) fade away afterwards....it is obviously OUR duty to praise them after the fact and without question.

I'm sorry, but the word "legacy" has one heck of a lot different meaning to me and many others who asked the same simple questions time and time again over the years.....to no avail.

 

[JUSTRIDE415]

All I can say is that Bill has been a great guy to me since i have known him. I have a lot of great memories from my four years of kids kamp and the few other times I have had a chance to talk to him. I wish him luck and hope for a replacement that will be as active as he was. I have met many of the gentlemen that work in this group and maybe one of them will step up, it would be great to see lewis schuler or one of the others that are passionate take over.

 

[2TrakR]

Why is he leaving the post?

The conversation ends there, my friend....

As it legally has to. No Board member of the CCC can speak to why/how/what Bill is leaving for. You want to his view, ask him directly. The Employer/Employee relationship dictates that we can only say he is no longer the Executive Director.

Just as I can't ask your boss why he fired you as he is legally obligated to not respond.

 

[woodsy]

As it legally has to. No Board member of the CCC can speak to why/how/what Bill is leaving for. You want to his view, ask him directly. The Employer/Employee relationship dictates that we can only say he is no longer the Executive Director.

Just as I can't ask your boss why he fired you as he is legally obligated to not respond.

and those laws were established for good reason!! It seems that some low life people like to take advantage of already sensitive information and cause undue harm with it just because they can... Some people will even add to the information to make it more hurtful!!!!!!!!!
That law seeks to protect ALL of us from these nasty bottom feeders.... ;)
GREAT POINT 2TRACKR!!
Woodsy

 

[TheBottomLine]

Salgeek didn't ask a "board member" or an "employee" to answer his very SIMPLE question. He asked if there was anybody man enough out there to answer the same question(s) we've been asking of this guy and others in your organization dealing directly with the DNR on orv issues for years.
Again, if you have the stones to refer to citizens simply asking what you people DO on a daily basis as orv users charged with representing this state's entire orv community as "nasty bottom feeders".....then I'm guessing you have the kahunas to address the myriad of issues we've brought up above and elsewhere regarding the guy who presided OVER them for all these years.(while you ran 'interference' for him here and elsewhere).

With $4 million on the line here and the reputation of your organization at stake in regards to how you handle all of this...why would you allow your own members to witness the discussion of these issues be squashed without comment? (we're going on three legitimate topics deleted for not content or language....but for the simple reason they contain witnessed facts that your rganization would just as soon not discuss!).

"My" so-called leader told me long ago that we were supposed to only interact "socially" with the motorcyclists....and in no other manner. Isn't it sad, now 6 years later, how much your leadership has felt exactly the same way and how my battle to address this situation has been completely stymied by guys like yourselves acting in this manner? (yet we're NOT supposed to prevent it from ever happening again with the next guy who steps up here....).

Wake up, guys...as your 'old school' members are getting older....and your younger guys just plain don't care whether you bring 4 or 2 wheels to the trail they hope to go down TOGETHER that day.

 

[KTM Mike]

It is all in the approach TBL - is it an approach that is inclusive, cooperative, seeking what is in the interest of both parties? Or is it an approach that is divisive, exclusive, adversarial, and one sided? Is it an approach that really is seeking a win/win or one that is only satisified with a win/loose? Is it an approach that starts with areas of common interest, and expands from there, or one that focuses solely on the negatives, and where we are different?

I dont care what someone else did back when ever, what matters is what happens now and going forward by the people currently involved.

What we agree on:

1) We enjoy riding ORVs (of various types) off road in Michigan
2) We each have different preferences in the type of trails the groups generally prefer to ride
3) We each see the need to expand trail systems to meet our respective needs.
4) We each see potential opportunity to do so.


To me that sounds like a lot of common ground that could very well result in BOTH winning! Yet we all see this adversarial approach played out. You criticise others for doing this (and I am sure it has happened from various people on both sides - though I have not witnessed it personally) ...and you (from my view) seem to do the same exact thing? If that approach is so unconstructive (as you have acknowledged), why would you choose what has been shown to be an ineffective method? You say you were stymied in addressing this issue (presumably the adversarial relationship) - no wonder! If you start out a conversation assuming I am the enemy, continue the conversation in that fashion - it is very likely to end as us being enemies!

I disagree with your statement about the younger riders not caring what type of trail they ride. They do care. No, not everyone wants bar banging tight trails to ride all the time, but some do. Even my own son, a quad rider, is finding trails that have gotten wider and wider, less enjoyable to ride. He also respects the tight trails I enjoy, and supports me having access to them. I also feel he should have trails he can enjoy. FWIW - I have been riding single track for only 4 years - I am not "old school".

When the conversation can become a TRUE DIALOG (two way), conducted in a respectful manner, seeking a win win - that is when good things can start to happen. Work cooperatively on developing parrallel trail systems addressing both needs - again a win win. REALLY LISTEN and care about the other parties needs - you both win.

 

[morgan]

TBL, you do realize that you really don't come off all that great? I mean with all the arguements you've had online and in person at meetings you really have to know that by now.

If you want to be taken seriously and truely want to make a change for the better within the trail riding community may I make a few suggestions:

1. Speak in concise, direct and to the point sentences----stop prattling on.

2. Stop the unsubstantiated innuendo.

3. Don't step in the room and right off the bat cop an "I'm on the outside looking in" attitude and expect any sort of productive discussion.

4. Look up the definition of Trolling.

5. Stop living in the past.

Listen, Top Wop has said that basically you're a good guy who's done plenty to help the sport in the past. I'm sure you're capable of foregoing a few issues to get back on track with helping the sport now and in the future. M. (Shannon)

 

[woodsy]

"REALLY LISTEN and care about the other parties needs - you both win."
Mike - I REALLY appreciate that tenor! I am putting that quote on my signature! By the way, Ted and I just had a conversation that revolved around that very topic. I truely believe that if WE - certainly pointing my fingers at myself first - could implemint that idea into action, wouold be unstoppable at what WE could accomplish.. And isnt it sad how hurtful and devistating the other side of that coin is??
Shannon - Great post for all of us to adhere to!! I might add that it is NEVER to late to change ones path and become very successful in accomplishing AWESOME things in life :nod:
Woodsy

 

[INCA]

There are some who neither understand nor appreciate democracy, what it is and how it works. They are also not aware that respect is earned before it can be given. So much for my line about living life.

Young Ted

 

[TheBottomLine]

"...There are some who neither understand nor appreciate democracy, what it is and how it works. They are also not aware that respect is earned before it can be given..."Young Ted

I'm going to have to wait until tomorrow to comment on much of what has been said above; yet this last attempt to divert attention from all the questions I've asked (deleted or not) really drives my point home.

The term "Democracy" has everything to do with the will of the majority and not the minority; which I have always respected. I have never questioned the light 4-wheeled rider's 'right', in this state, to drive policy by pure agreed upon 'numbers' alone. What perverts the *******ized version of which INCA refers above in OUR situation...is the fact that the discussion of orv policy in this state has ALWAYS been done behind the same kind of closed doors which prompted every one of you above to not take on even ONE of my questions which discussed this simple fact itself!

Below is an excerpt from the latest incarnation of light 4-wheeled clubs; led 'informally' (now) by a guy who has worn a WHOLE lot of hats.
Here's a guy who once VEHEMENTLY defended the very same person his present members quit in disgust after RUDELY chastising anybody who predicted they would do exactly that....represented ATVERS on a "community wide shame" council; yet who would NOT reveal, when asked several times, what so much as even happened there....has been asked COUNTLESS times to reveal what "our" position is on a myriad of orv-related issues involving not only our old leader but (more importantly) the motorcycle group driving policy; TO NO AVAIL....has sat at the head of our table at atv meetings insisting that we were NOT beholden to the CCC in any way, shape, or form and "never" would be....not to mention a guy who took a clue from his 'mentor' in insisting that all atvers stand up at these meetings with something to 'say'; yet with not a word from himself or any response to a year-to-year demand that we should be bringing a united front to our meeting presentations in the first place (which is why these advisory board meetings have been a goat rodeo from the beginning; with every 'significant' issue solved/discussed before us 'peons' are ever 'allowed' to make our ONE WAY presentations (with absolutley no response expected from anyone attending).

Here is the latest from our major atv club...the same guys who have been FOR YEARS dodging questions about our relationship with the CCC and how our 4-wheeled group will formulate separate policies which finally take into account the future of our trail system and the true meaning of "multi-use trails" (keep in mind...these are the same guys who refused to answer ANY questions concerning the CCC...):

"...(we) will have further discussions with the CCC about becoming a charter club....."

I realize that you should be PROUD of finally transforming these atv guys into the "red-headed step-child" of Dist. 14.....yet there are folks out here 'beyond' the glare of those big-city suburbanite lights and their promised fulfillment of your big-city multi-million dollar riding area plans.....who realize that an open "democracy" had absolutely nothing to do with that accomplishment.

Again, please don't PERVERT the word "democracy".....when many of you don't even have the stones to face those who 'constitute it'....in the first place.(you're either not smart enough to simply drag these things out in the open and have it voted on (who 'cares' what I have to say if you are in the majority and can prove you ran it up the flag pole); bringing the stinging rebuke you see above and the loss of your reputation....or you're not PROUD enough of how your policies were formed/where they are heading....to reveal them in the first place (which offers the same result).

 

[KTM Mike]

1) Criticism of the past does nothing for the future. The past is simply a historical dynamic and reflection of the reality that existed back then. It is NOT exactly how it must be in the future.
2) Politics has many strange bedfellows. Therefore so does Democracy. Why do you think lobbying groups exist? Why do you think various business associations etc. regularly hold conferences etc. in DC, then en mass "storm the hill" meeting (behind the scenes) with their ELECTED representatives? (that IS how democracy works) Yes, many deals are brokered in advance, behind the scenes. Is this necessarily good? No. Is it an ugly reality? Yes.
3) It is much easier to change things from the inside, than it is from the outside!
4) Being accepted on the inside requires MUTUAL respect (see Inca's comment). This means demonstrating it in all you do. It also means respecting the past, the present and what everyone might hope for the future.
5) First impressions are lasting impressions.
6) What is the impression being left here?

 

[MWEISSEN]

Guys,
As we had to do before, I'd suggest you "ignore" TheBottomLine, you only stir up his pointless retoric by replying.

Thebottomline,
Please leave this area, we don't care what you have to say quite frankly. You are clearly "smarter" and "more right" than anyone here. Go start your own forum. It would be appreciated. By someone, somewhere......

 

[70 marlin]

Bravo, Mark!

 

[dan1608]

What the hell was all that about?

 

[YZMAN400]

What the hell was all that about?

You really dont want to know. TBL is a pain in the :moon:

 

[TheBottomLine]

It is all in the approach TBL - is it an approach that is "inclusive", "cooperative", seeking what is in the interest of both parties?

You tell me, Mike...is it 'now' your assertion that the so-called leadership in this Michigan orv community has been 'hard at work' DEFINING these Xanadu-like terms above for all these years...or are these simply the same fee good buzzwords that guys such as our chairman used to shame us before he took 'our' multi-user group council 'underground'?....

".....Or is it an approach that is divisive, exclusive, adversarial, and one sided?..."

Let's take the terms one-by-one....you first have to be "united" as a commmunity before you can ever be "divided"....the term "exclusive" must reference our leadership's 'management' style concerning simple issues where arrogance/exclusitivity have reigned for years..."adversarial" has become the knee-jerk term in this orv community describing any Michigan citizen asking the simplest of questions...and "one-sided" (I'm assuming) refers to people like myself questioning 'where' or "by whom" over $4 million of our sticker money will be "spent down by 2008".(a topic REPEATEDLY deleted on this forum and one of which no leader I've run into 'surprisingly' wants to discuss).

"... Is it an approach that really is seeking a win/win or one that is only satisified with a win/loose?...."

What's a "win/win" solution, Mike?
Not one mention in the public record for YEARS of anyone commited to true parallel run multi-use trails throughout the system...only a suggestion by "motorcyclists that we spend $50,000 to study the feasibility of 100 miles of "motorcycle only" trails in the Huron Forest?
Uh, 'Mike'...is THIS the "win/lose" you refer to?

"....Is it an approach that starts with areas of common interest, and expands from there, or one that focuses solely on the negatives, and where we are different?...."

Tell me something, Mike...how do you seek "common areas of interest"....when the leadership handed to you time and time again feels that either we SHOULDN'T work together; or that any discussion CONCERNING same should be at the discretion of whoever buddies up with your guy behind the rest of our backs?
In other words, if we trade in a guy who doesn't necessarily 'like' your leadership....for a guy who has some kind of strange relationship with your leadership which precludes ANY disclosure of exactly what 'does' go on when these two people meet..."differences" (as you describe them) inevitably turn into how much 'character' a leader posesses or exactly what their motives could possibly be when turning such simple subject matter into something akin to saving the free world as we know it.

I dont care what someone else did back when ever, what matters is what happens NOW and going forward by the people currently involved.

Gee, I 'bet' you don't Mike....and what happens "now" seems to involve a $4 million dollar expenditure "going forward by the people currently involved"...and certainly NOT involving simple sitizens asking simple questions! (see above if you didn't get a chance to read all the simple topics deleted earlier),

"...You say you were stymied in addressing this issue (presumably the adversarial relationship) - no wonder! If you start out a conversation assuming I am the enemy, continue the conversation in that fashion - it is very likely to end as us being enemies!...."

C'mon, Mike; nobody 'assumed' anybody was an adversary. When some leader rolls up to my first atv meeting in a big 'ol fancy trailer proclaiming that his original membership will get "preferrential benefits" beyond what the balance of us assembled will receive....'I' don't take his word or many of my regional DNR staff's off-the-record comments concerning your organization as gospel...I confirm a lot of this later when treated arrogantly at advisory board meetings by guys who won't look you in the eye or do so with their head cocked to one side and a toothpick sticking out of their mouth.

"...Even my own son, a quad rider, is finding trails that have gotten wider and wider, less enjoyable to ride. He also respects the tight trails I enjoy, and supports me having access to them....."

"Wow", Mike...your own SON "supports your access to trails"!?..."unbeleivable!!!!"
Tell me something...what trails have YOU (as a motorcyclist) EVER been denied access to? Hmm?

"...When the conversation can become a TRUE DIALOG (two way), conducted in a respectful manner, seeking a win win - that is when good things can start to happen. Work cooperatively on developing parrallel trail systems addressing both needs - again a win win. REALLY LISTEN and care about the other parties needs - you both win...."

Great idea, Mike!.....Now when is that conversation going to start?....AFTER you've spent the $4 million...or well BEFORE this next meeting and in PUBLIC? (you know, a place where your leadership can't shout down any opinion that is contrary and where citizens aren't bullied or denied their right to speak when it is formally requested...."You get 3 minutes and 3 minutes "ONLY"....).