BadgerMan
Mi. Trail Riders
- Jan 1, 2001
- 2,479
- 10
fatherandson said:The width requirements (24 and 50) should be enforced and parallel trail systems should be used.
:nod:
End of discussion...... :laugh:
fatherandson said:The width requirements (24 and 50) should be enforced and parallel trail systems should be used.
I too have heard such talk from quad riders, at Jackpine no less! Although I kept my lips sealed, I was quite furious at their "mocking" attitude towards destroying quality bike trails. Obviously, the irresponsible minority is wrecking it for the rest of us.I've talked to some ATV riders that pride themselves in "opening up the tight trails for everyone".
Shoot first ask questions later! :debil: Good point about enforcement. Don't see much if any of that.fatherandson said:The width requirements (24 and 50) should be enforced and parallel trail systems should be used.
TCTrailrider said:Strong enforcement with harsh penalties. DNR should patrol single track with a portable crusher. Quad on a single track, into the crusher. Wouldn't take long for the word to spread. If they would let me do the crushing I'd even pay for it. :nod: Now that would be fun. :laugh:
fatherandson said:The width requirements (24 and 50) should be enforced and parallel trail systems should be used.
SGJ_Johansen said:I support a dual trail system, one for bikes and one for ATV's.
Brian
MWEISSEN said: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
(over) 50 said:I've read comments on this site lots of times and thought I might add my two cents.It would be great if a single track trail could be run within thirty or forty yards of the original trail,and use the same crossings for roads and streams. Tin Cup and Lincoln Hills seems to be a good example of a dual trail system.I have both bike and quad and can see both sides of the issue.The quad people are starting to get their act together ,the Michigan ATV Asso. is a couple years old and they promote youth training and organize group rides. We are all in this together and numbers count.I've ridden with some of you guys the last couple of years and hope to again. Think spring!
I wish I knew if the CCC board and officers share BrianJ's energy to keep the loops cycle trail? but, I don't know what the leaderships' goals are with respect to trail widths.
Recently, TrailRider made reference to "encouraging some ATV user groups to join the CCC as chapters"
With this developement does that mean some BOG's want 50" trail and some want 40" cycle trail? Is this in alignment with membership?
2TrakR said:. If any of us get greedy we will all lose as the DNR will win and evict us when they get the opportunity. Don't think so? Do you remember far enough back to when the forest roads in the lower peninsula were open? How about before the designated trail system when we could ride any trail out there, marked or not? Geez that used to be fun.
This falls back to the "making friends of ATVs instead of making enemies"..
morgan said:Thanks for the write up Jeramey---good stuff.
Evidently Forest Certification is at the core of this whole issue. Man, just what we need---bigger government and more audits/hoops to jump through.
I've seen it all before when I was in the service: #1-and audit team comes in and identifies "problems". #2-everyone goes way overboard trying to right the wrongs and cover their butts. #3-in the end the main mission of the unit is compromised because of this self sustaining bureaucracy.
. :)