Your input please

[2TrakR]

What do you guys think?

Background:
ORV trails have one definition - open to all ORVs less than 50" in width. That includes cycles, ATVs, go karts and so on, just have to be less than 50".
There are two maintenance specs for these ORV Trails, one has the trail maintained at 50" wide at the ground and that wide up to eight foot high. Most typically think of this as an ATV trail. The other spec is 24" at the ground and 40" at the handlebar on up to 8'. Most consider this to be motorcycle trail. Still legal for quads to use either trail as it is for cycles to use either.

Question:
There's a rumor that there might be some movement in the DNR to try and get a Director's Order to make it illegal to ride an ATV on ORV Trails that are designated as cycle trails (40").
Would you support making it illegal for ATVs to ride on trails maintained to 40"?

Example trails:
50" = West Higgins
40" = North Missaukee #1 and #2 (or think of the new trail LMC put in this past fall).

This would only affect State land; a similar setup already exists on USFS land as the Holton/HorseShoe and Big O trails are already "cycle only" and it's a ticket-able offense to get caught with an ATV on either trail.

A Director's Order can put certain rules in place without any necessary legislation. For example, all of the area around the "turtle ponds" on State land near Sanford is closed to all motorized use by a Director's Order. A DO was also just used to implement a speed limit on a piece of snowmobile trail in the UP.

Please take some time to consider any ramifications before making a decision.

I'll save my commentary for later as to not bias your opinion.

 

[BadgerMan]

Would you support making it illegal for ATVs to ride on trails maintained to 40"?

Is this a trick question?

:coocoo:

 

[Wolf Child]

well all I can say is... QUADS SUCK!!! :laugh:

having said that...


there are far more of THEM than there are of US. while having cycle only trails is nice, and ATVs tend to rut trails in ways the make two wheeled traffic incresingly difficult in places. bottom line. we need the quadtards, if for no other reason than to increase our voice on land use issues.

However, while I think catering more to the quad crowd SHOULD only help us all in the long run, I really think it the lack of responsibility most quad riders display that will ultimately bring more problems than they solve.

So it's a catch 22. either way we will end up on the short end of the stick. while land use IS (in my mind) THE most important issue. Until we all start acting responsible, more traffic just means more problems. :|

 

[woodsy]

OK - because I really dont care what anybody really thinks of my opinion, I will bite first :laugh:
I think the trail widths should speak for what is and isnt allowed on each trail. In other words, if you get caught on a trail designated as a "24 inch" trail with a wider ride you are in violation. I dont think it should have anything to do with number of wheels - I think it should be based soley on WIDTH!! Public land IS public land and it should be open to as many people as possible...
Sooooo, if its 50 inch trail ANYTHING that is within that spec can LEGALLY be on it...
Next, I DESPISE this Directors Order idea.. I would NEVER agree with something like that!! If that is the way the Law is set up right now I can certainly see how/why the Conservation Officers have become so cocky over the years. They litterally have a Dictator on their "team"!! I DO NOT agree with the idea that one person has the legal right to "close" or "unclose" any of our public lands.. If it is that way 2trackr, the first thing I think WE need to focus on is getting THAT changed!!
Radical Woodsy :aj:

 

[KTM Mike]

As some one that likes tight trail - I say yes - the law should be consistent with the "designed" use of the trail. But, there are political consequences to be aware of - and both Wolf and Woodsy touched on it.

I agree with Woodsy that we need be careful in the choice of words - dont say "no quads", rather say "no vehicles wider than 24" at the ground" - splitting hairs...sure is. But as Wolf pointed out, we need the voting power of the quad riders in our corner. With this in mind, is now the time to do something like this?

Might we be better off to do something that provides the quads (and lets not forget them Rhino things), the sense they gain - some new 50" trail perhaps, toss in some Rhino stuff to boot (find some existing two track we cant ride currently, and open it as "route"), along with some new 24" stuff - now we're talkin! If we dont, from their view, they have lost trail. They sure wont support that. (cant say I would blame them either). Is it "fair"? maybe, maybe not...is it reality? maybe so.

I guess I dont have such strong feelings as Woodsy on the DO thing... more because I cant say I have paid attention to such matters!

 

[YZMAN400]

Well thats a tough question. One one side I know that the quad guys need a place to ride also. And yes there is more of them than there is us. But on the other side I have seen what they can do to a 40" trail if they get ambitious and I dont like it at all.

If I were to be totaly selfish, which it is very hard not to be somedays, I would say hell yes keep them out of the single track, they have no business out there.

But on the other hand they have as much a rite to ride on out public lands as we do.

So I dont know what a good answer to that question is. If the trail is 40" quads shouldn't be out there anyway. Making it illegal seems to be putting an exclamination point on the statement is all. But would it be seen that way by the ATV community? I doubt it.

Good luck with that one.

 

[MWEISSEN]

I agree with keeping the trail width as the guidance on what can and cannot be ridden on the trail. So, on 40" trail the normal ATV should not be allowed to ride on it.

I also might point out that the 40" and 50" designation is misleading. Since 40" trail isn't 40" wide on the ground level. To make things consistent, maybe the 40" trail should be called 24" or something like that.

I can understand why the DNR has the Director's Order, at times it would be necessary in cases of environmental or wildlife habitat damage that needs immediate correction. One may argue that's the case on certain 40" trails, like Evart and White Cloud, that have been "ruined" by ATV traffic.

Given that condition, I would support the Director's Order. Given another situation, it should go to public comment, etc.

Unfortunately, if it goes forward as a Director's order, it may inflame some ATV riders, or may not. I really don't know how strong the quad riders are in Michigan.

 

[BadgerMan]

Even though the property taxes I pay go towards its construction and maintenance, if I were to drive my truck down the paved bicycle path in my neighborhood, I would expect to get a ticket. Likewise, I would expect to get a ticket if I took a lap around the Cannonsburg SGA MTB trail on my KTM. What more need be said?

Are you saying that our riding oppotunities may be limited? I rode Leota last year and let me tell ya, I don't consider places like Leota to be "riding opportunities" any more. It's a very sad situation IMHO. I think we need any help we can get in protecting the few cycle-only trails that are left.

 

[woodsy]

Yea Mark, I missed stating that point in my dissertation... I think going down from a stated "40" inch to a stated "24" inch would make sense - that why I quoted the 24!! Read the rules now and it appears we are wanting the best of both worlds (we want ground width of bikes with handle bar width of quads).. Going to a measurement of 50 AND 24 would certainly make it easier to call violations from a distance (instead of 50 and 40) AND would give much stronger creedance to the bike only idea... We may have to cut our bars downthough :aj:
Oh yea, in case anyone wonders.. I am STILL adement about getting OUR land back to OPEN unless posted closed too - just like the real Michigan up north/U.P. folks have it!!! Opening seasonal roads would take a HUGE amount of pressure off the woods by the quadders AND, after all, THEY/WE OWN THOSE LANDS TOO!!!
Woodsy :ride:

 

[woodsy]

And another thought...
Wording is/can be EVERYTHING guys!! If we say, ATV's not allowed on Cycle trails it pits us (bikers) against them (quadders).. Fact is, we have to be wayyyyyy smarter then this!! Thjis is just the kind of ploy that the DNR LOVES to use against our "kind"!! We need to defang the personal side of this issue by AVOIDING the "us against them" idea and get down to "this width can go here - this width can go there".. Can you see how using proper language becomes less offensive???
Political stuff but VERY essential if we really are EVER going to get the REAL big bad wolf (no offense Wolfie).. :p
Woodsy :ride:

 

[bbarel]

I support it. I agree these Directors orders have WAY too much power, but it is what it is and if it can be utilized to get back some single-track then why not because you surely know it has been and will be utilized against our favor. As for bike only, I think we should call a spade a spade because we all know what 24" means, so let's just call it what it is 'bike-only'. The quad guys will disagree either way because it means they can't ride the trail however you label it. Then we can have clear signs showing bikes ok and quads with a big red X. I'm in the camp that the trail needs for bikes and quads ARE much different and I'm not afraid to say it out loud.

 

[katoom125]

there definitely should be bike only (2 wheeler - narrow) trail - what I consider single track. whether or not there is joint (shared) trail is not as important to me as I have never intentionally ridden with 4 wheelers anyway as our riding styles/preferences are different - I prefer the tighter single track to the wider trails open/ridable to the larger 4 wheeler..

 

[morgan]

The way I see it----

Don't let me put words in anyone's mouth---but the question being asked here is not "should we enforce 24" compliance", and is not "should we allow a non legislative decision".

The actual question being asked here is "do we want to make enemies out of the 4 wheeler community?".

IMHO the only way to keep our 24" trails and not piss any one group off is to stagger the fee structure for the ORV stickers------is it really going to be such a large bureaucratic task to issue two stickers (atv/bike) priced differently? Come on!!

Any other move----ANY OTHER MOVE----is only going to encourage infighting and division amongts a group (the ORV community) that only wants to collectively preserve this wonderful resource we have here in Michigan.

Personally I hate 24" single track but I think it is something that is truely unique in this day and age. To loose it would be a shame. Widen it out and we'll have one loop after another that's pretty much like Gladwin or Leota---over used, sandy, double rutted yuck. Torque the quaders off (who are larger in number), give them a chance to organize and before you know it there'll be a DO to change the specs from 24" to 50"------or better yet 72" to accommodate the RUV's too.

Rant off. MHO off. SR.

 

[bbarel]

Bikers are the ones who should be upset. Bikers made the trails and then the quads came and widened them all out, except for very few exceptions. If the quaders are going to be upset because the bikers want to get back some of what the bikers created before the quads came along and changed things, then so be it let them be upset. There are now plenty of trails that are very well suited for quads. I don't think it is unreasonable to ask to get back some of what was originally created by the bikers.

 

[BadgerMan]

The above are all good points. However, I wonder about the wisdom of aligning with the quad community for political gain/influence. As I see it, that group has done more to taint our image than we have done ourselves. IMO, we have been losing ground ever since 3 and 4 wheelers became “more than a farm implement” in the 1980’s. To be viewed, by the non-riding public, as one big group of OHV enthusiasts may not be the best thing (ref. Muskegon Chronicle article from 2005). I lean towards drawing a very evident distinction. As an example, I wonder how the MTB riders would feel about joining forces with us as one large group of two-wheeled off-road enthusiasts? I am pretty sure they would scream bloody murder in an attempt to protect THEIR trail systems………as they should.

Twenty four inches or forty inches, just establish some rules and enforce them. As it stands right now, our riding opportunities are dwindling fast. As I inferred above, if Leota type systems end up being the only option, many of us may eventually opt to hang it up.

 

[Trailridin]

I am all for the designation change and also for it to be renamed 24" trail vs 40" trail and have similar markings as the National Forest single track. However, if this gets changed it will only drive another wedge between us and the quad community.

Personally, I feel this designation should probably be changed in the ORV plan that the DNR is supposedly coming out with this year rather than as an executive decision. The reasons are:

1.) It will be just another line item in the plan and may not get as much attention.

2.) Hopefully there will be a lot of newly created ORV Route in the proposal and there won't be as much dissension from the ATVers.

I have seen listings in the new newsletter for single track being created but not any new route. I find it difficult to believe that the creation of route would be more difficult than single track. The environmental impact of posting an already existing forest road as "open" seems much less than cutting a new single track through the woods. I hope that the new plan allows for the creation of a lot more trail, both single and open, as to reduce the conflicts between the user groups and keep everyone happy and working together.

 

[morgan]

Ok, ok---sorry to derail Jeramey's initial question by going into a subject so controversial.

Yes I would support making it illegal for ATV's to ride on maintained 40" trail. Honestly I don't understand why it isn't already. REALLY yanks me to see the quad damage to these trails----mainly because I am a trail maintenance volunteer.

But we have to be prepared for the fallout when these guys get issued an $80 or $100 ticket and start complaining to their 4x4 peers and 4x4 club as to how they got the raw deal----even though the individual was clearly in the wrong. Then you'll see the whole "the money I spent for this ORV sticker is going to maintain a trail I can't ride (and got ticketed on)" blow up in everyones face. There has to be a way to head that off.

Maybe I'm all washed up and maybe I'm wrong---but I'm just going on the direction of discussion on the other side.

 

[TCTrailrider]

Changing the language from 40" to 24" is a good idea. 40" implies that its open to quads. 24" trail needs to be maintained in places so a quad will not fit. New 24" trail needs to be added because there is none of it left. Reducing the trail available for quads is a no win situation, it divides the user groups and nothing will get done.
I like the tight stuff and see very little quad traffic on the trails I ride. It can't be fun riding Evart on a quad, but they ride it and the trail is changed forever. The change to Long Lake in the past 2 years is incredible, same with Tomahawk.
We did winter rides this year at Lincoln Hills. I was surprised how tight it was for being part of the heavily used Baldwin trail system. This system has a parallel ORV Route that shadows the single track. The wider vehicles stay off the skinny stuff if other opportunities are available. If not they will crash through the Single track because they just want to ride.
Give me some more skinny stuff and I'm happy, but thats just me.

 

[2TrakR]

Great discussion guys; please don't stop putting your views out here. That's exactly the info I'm really after.
Here's some numbers to play with:
We got close to 200,000 ORV stickers sold in 2005 (it was 180K last I saw a tally).
Back in 2000 a respectable study showed bikes in the 20% range of stickers, full size in similar numbers and the rest going to ATVs. Say 60% for ATVs, that was 6 years ago. The trend from the stats before then show fairly steady increase in ATVs vs bikes.
New sales, ATVs account for ~80% and bikes ~20%. RUVs in the 1% range.
Organized groups for ATVs: MATVA, ATVOC and SORVA in the UP. Less than 1000 represented members.
Organized groups for cycles (staggering in comparison): CCC, AMA D-14 are the two biggest, then there are plenty of regional clubs like LMC, Sandstormers, Twin Bay and so on. Just between D-14 and the CCC we're in the 10s of thousands of represented membership.
A large number of ORV stickers are sold to hunters/fisherman (need a sticker to ice fish).
There are ~2900 miles in the MI ORV system.
Of those 3K miles, 500 is (72") Route; 2200 is Trail and 190 is Road (MCCCT).
One fourth of the trail system is Route, for all ORVs.
Of the 2200 miles of trail, 1100 are 50" and 1000 are 40" trail.
Not all trail systems designated as 40" are single track (safe to say most are not) and they tend to generally already be 50" trails. Red Bridge, for example, is 50" for 2/3 of the system and 1/3 of it is still 24" cycle trail. Bummers Roost is 50"; Evart is about 50/50.

Do these numbers change your minds at all (either way)?

 

[katoom125]

Great discussion guys; please don't stop putting your views out here. That's exactly the info I'm really after.

Do these numbers change your minds at all (either way)?

No, not at all. I still want my single track - not 50" stuff either - the tighter the better and NO 4 wheelers on it period!

there are lots of them (more than I knew) and i say yes, they should have their trails - especially so they don't want to ride mine.

 

[BadgerMan]

Organized groups for ATVs: MATVA, ATVOC and SORVA in the UP. Less than 1000 represented members.
Organized groups for cycles (staggering in comparison): CCC, AMA D-14 are the two biggest, then there are plenty of regional clubs like LMC, Sandstormers, Twin Bay and so on. Just between D-14 and the CCC we're in the 10s of thousands of represented membership.

That confirms my gut feeling. I think we give the quad riders far too much credit as far as their potential influence in Lansing.

Remember, the “quad” sales figures include all those four wheeled OHV’s sold for hunting, ice fishing, farming, dune riding, etc. Many of them never see the trail systems we are speaking of. I think the damage is being caused by a select minority.

No, not at all. I still want my single track - not 50" stuff either - the tighter the better and NO 4 wheelers on it period!

I agree completely. It's kinda hard for me to understand why there is even an issue here. It seems as black and white as the illegal immigration issue to me. Maybe someone can enlighten me? :coocoo:

 

[KTM Mike]

Do these numbers change your minds at all (either way)?

Nope no change in my mind...i still want tight single track, and I still feel we have some political realities to face (no disrespect intended to others).

Here is what I see in those #s

1) We (bikers) are like 20% of the machines, yet have about 30% of the total trails "designated" (not necessarily the reality in how tight they are) as for us only. So we are over represented in the trail types. That is amo for the ATV groups.
2) Bikers are DRAMATICALLY better organized that quad users (for now at least) ...and it is in part reflected in the trail mix - though not as well as you might otherwise think it could be. This would likely serve as a solid motivator for the ATV groups - we have proven what it takes to get what you want!
3) Bikers have clearly shown they have not forced all trails to be of their design...very much have bent over backwards to include wider user types. This could easily be a good point in our favor.
4) bikers are the primary ones that maintain all these miles of trails - we sure have been nice to them quad guys havent we?


To me the issue is not about opening up the skinny stuff into wide, it is about making sure we have enough skinny stuff, and the ATVs have enough wide stuff to make both of us happy. In some ways, the more we do to assure the ATVs have plenty of wide stuff, the more likely we (may?) be to get what we want. The trick is accomplishing BOTH in a reasonable time period.

From posts on other michigan specific ATV forums,it is clear there is a movement towards ATV users becoming way better organized. We need to pay head to this.

It is also in clear that there is a vocal minority (on both sides) with some uh...extreme views..an all or nothing perspective. They may or may not get any where. Jeramy has done an excellent job in keep his cool in some rather heated discussions on other boards - and if you base it on the posts there, MOST of those posting seem to take a more moderate and reasonable view, aknowledging we bikers deserve to have our tight trail. But one or two hot heads seem to stir it all up.

To me the opportunity is to support and encourge those ATV users with the moderate views enough to drown out the the voices of those stiring the pot. Those loose cannons are the ones we need to worry about.

 

[morgan]

They may or may not get any where. Jeramy has done an excellent job in keep his cool in some rather heated discussions on other boards .

Yeah, I noticed that too----just how does he do that? :think:

 

[MWEISSEN]

Jeremy, the numbers confirm what I thought. ATV riders are probably more casual users, convinced that the ATV's are safer to ride, and just want to get out in the woods. A lot of them are probably only fired up during deer hunting to get to the tree blind and haul a kill out (ie what my father used to do). I wasn't surprised that the numbers in the clubs and active groups are far short when compared to bikes. Dirt bikers are becoming a more specialized "serious" trail user.

I see some of your points on distancing our use away from ATV support and allowing the groups to carry themselves. The use, and the needs are different. Since ATV users may be less aware of ways to avoid environmental damage and that staying on the trail is the right thing, they would tend to create more environmental damage.

I've talked to some ATV riders that pride themselves in "opening up the tight trails for everyone". So there are probably those few users that "conquer" these nasty elements, then other more casual users move in and widen them more. Incredible, eh?

I'd also venture to guess that an ATV rider is not going to be as willing to travel very far for casual weekend trail use. So, the trails close to larger urban areas are going to have a higher ATV to cycle ratio. So that's why Cedar Creek, White Cloud and Evart have been done in by ATV traffic.

I think the parallel trail systems have shown that ATV's will leave single track alone so that both groups get a quality ride. This is more indicative that opening forest roads would probably greatly reduce the damage of 24/40" trail caused by ATV's

 

[fatherandson]

The width requirements (24 and 50) should be enforced and parallel trail systems should be used.