[quote="ramsfan[i]"]"...rhino I would love to join your chat, but am simply lost in the words you use. Yes I get the point in a round of bout way but you make it difficult to understand what points you want listened to..."[/i]
Fair enough. As you also seem to get lost in your thoughts (below) I tend to cram far to many into one sentance. Here's a few short and sweet in response to your thoughts; please feel free to dispute any or all of it and thanks for replying.
"...I agree if the state collects the same money from me as the do a mc or atv then I should have the same trail use as they do...."
Ahhhhh...yet this is not the case....and never has been!
#1) You can't even
begin to discuss true multi-use trail systems with cross-sport cooperation without putting this issue to rest once and for all...
...and #2) you're already the biggest sob on this planet for 'daring' to suggest what you just did out here in public.
I love discussing the concept of us all working together....yet I'm not just willing to let 'the other side' pass on even the most
basic of premises before doing so (which is why arguments start in the first place; as opposed to a group such as atv or utvers refusing to allow any one motorized group to play 'God' over the other).
"....and I have seen where there are some areas taking side by sides more serious...."
I am glad that this is happening elsewhere; just obviously not at the largest maintained system in this country (Michigan). No other system of this size (that I know of) has this much potential funding revenue on the line at this moment. Unfortunately, this brings out the worst in people believing that it should be their way or the highway.
"...I know you are not putting this event or anyone here down, but you might want to simplify what you are saying for some of us who get lost in your words...."
I cannot thank you enough for saying just that and this is obviously not my intent in the least. Hopefullly, my thoughts so far have been direct and to the point.
"..I have had some heated issues in other forums on the 50 inch rule..."
Again, the people giving you 'heat' on this issue hope like all holy heck that you first gloss over the much
simpler one above related to working together on the same trails. They
want you to waste your time arguing ridiculously narrow widths....while they go out and loby more single track "me-only" trails behind your (our) back!
If they can tie you up arguing what they know they'll ride anyways
regardless of what width trail it eventually becomes...isn't that one less person questioning the existence of single-track in the first place?
"...and feel that instead of a width rule they should maybe step up to the gov. standard of cc's which is the way they classify side by sides in the atv class due to the fact they wont let it get over a certain HP...."
Understood....but when is the motorcycle crowd
forced into acting like something less than arrogant regarding the concept of multi-use systems? For pete's sake, these guys have been brainwashing kids for
decades into believing that the motorcycle is God's exclusive gift to motorized recreation and that land should be set aside for their annointed arses...like no other!
Again, since I've never witnessed atvers or utvers arrogantly demand their own separate trails; I've come to the conclusion that by and large they are a pretty 'inclusive' bunch.
Peek in on a dirt bike rider forum once and do a search for the subject of "atvs" even on the trails we both share presently....believe me, you won't like how the 'leaders' in that community have
allowed their young and old to
act over the past few decades.
"...obviously on some trails you dont want full size 4 wheel drive trucks running down it with 44 inch tires and 350+HP but there should be a place provided for that to happen....."
The full-sizers would gladly join forces with the balance of this community if the majority balance of this community
took control and truly
believed in the basic tenants of multi-use systems. In my huge state (relatively for trails) it is a matter of honestly bringing the most basic of access-related debates to the forefront....which is why national orv organizations don't desire simple "Q and A" periods to take place at "come to jesus" gatherings like Travel management workshops (where all the parties are under one roof and 'supposedly' seeking input as to how fit everybody on to a limited resource
responsibly).
"...Moab they have hundreds and hundreds of miles of trails and they do provide areas for every type of ride, so if that part of the state can do it then why not the other parts that have great trail systems also...."
Every type of ride....so are you saying that they
close down areas to multi-use as they do here in Michigan....or do they give trails to motorcyclists
that are only accessible by same like say at the Hatfield McCoy System?
There's a difference between building paralell multi-use systems (where overall potential mileage within the accessible area is not affected by the paralell single-track) and simply closing down trails because the AMA and every national orv organization out there cater to their non-profit "buddie's" religion concerning God-given exclusive access.
The wide-open west is an issue in and of itself....every
other location in this country begs the cooperation of all groups involved through the creation of true multi-use sytems which effectively FORCE these single-trackers into checking the present arrogant attitude at the door.
"...I guess what I am trying to say is yes I agree and feel there should be more opportunitys out there for all and yes I feel many clubs are just that clubs. But given a chance I fell this group with the help of people like yourself and others who agree can and will make a difference...."
We aren't being given a chance and that's my point.
If you get treated like I've been for 'daring' to talk as I've just did....you aren't even out of the barn.
"...But it wont be overnight and It will take get togethers like this to show we can organize and put on safe events with good results...."
Not bashing the event whatsoever nor safety in general...but having a 'safe' event with 'good results' (are you referring to overall attendance?) won't make a damn bit of difference as to the attitude changing
needed that we've talked about here on this thread. If you bring any of this up at a campfire (since no other formal political leaning meeting will be held, apparently, just like every other gathering) you'll be quickly handed a beer and told to 'lighten up' a bit. (nobody's interested in talking about their snot-nosed kid's legacy concerning these areas or these machines....and you know it).
"...I have already mentioned maybe having organized cleznups in parks to 1 help show we care about our trail systems 2 get more attention on what sxs's can do 3 show that it is more then just farmers buying these sxs's 4 they can be safe and fun ways to see the parks 5 meet with officials so they can discuss the future of trails and what would be needed to continue this...."
I'm 100% behind you, my friend. I just don't happen to believe that approaching these issues with "the gloves on" anymore is a responsible way to proceed when considering what's at stake. These orv leaders have wasted literally
decades of cross-sport cooperation allowing all of us to go our separate ways for fear of losing even one dollar sent into their cozy non-profits over
needed controversy. We cannot continue to teach our kids that one sport is 'superior' to another access-wise and we cannot allow any one group to bash the other as has been allowed for years now within the founding community.
Use these gatherings for at the very
least charity events benefitting local organizations and at the most a 'start' in showing that the introduction of the utv has truly been the biggest thing in motorized recreation....ever. (what other machine has
finally allowed the young, old and
disabled to enjoy the outdoors
as should be their right with the help of generous owners such as us?)
Believe me, there will be plenty of time for sitting around the campfire afterwards.