This affects *all* the trails you ride

[OneMoreMile]

Done.

[kalkaskawinterfest]

I just called Wayne Schmidt's office. Info Im getting from them is the goal of the bill is to open up some of the Pigeon River area. The office said Charter Capts, MUCC, Cyclist, and a number of other user groups have been calling. The input fromm the MUCC was a big input to him {25 mill.}. They also said this was just a committee meeting and it may not ever even go to a vote. Greg MacMaster's family are indeed horse owners and there just might be some personal interest here.

[kalkaskawinterfest]

Greg MacMaster 855-347-8105

[Critter7r]

So.... if some Rep wants to get trails in his area opened up for horses, why not do it on the county (or even park) level? Why shove your idea down the throat of the entire state? God I hate people that know what's best for everyone.

[Di_bear]

It's the Pigeon River Country equestrians who are pushing this, and their story has been plastered all over the web for all to see. Google to find more.

Update:

The committee meeting has been postponed until Thursday, November 10, 2011 at 8:30 a.m. in 308 House Office Building, Lansing, MI.

[geardaddy37]

my letter;

I am writing in opposition to the proposed house bill which will open up all trails in the State to equestrian use. The reason for this opposition is that as a trail volunteer I have logged many hours building and maintaining trails in this State, only to see time and again these trails become damaged by horses. It is common sense that hiker and bicycle traffic as well as other non-motorized use of trails such as geo- caching, and mushrooming are going to be trumped with the use of these trails by horses, which tend to destroy trails and forest habitat. The planners at Custer State Park recently divided the trails so that different user groups could co-exist. This represents a perfect example of how I believe these types of issues should be mediated, not by high level political posturing, but by local residents and their park managers. Arbitrarily opening up all trails to equestrian use represents an unnecessary and inappropriate use of State legislative authority to protect one user group's rights at the expense of others. This will also cost roughly 25 million dollars in federal monies which are currently used to help fund other activities and user groups. In my opinion the passing of this bill represents the priveleging of the few at the cost of the many. This type of pandering to one group reflects the kind of political gamesmanship that the voters of this State are fed up with. Please represent all of the people of this State by opposing house bill 4684.

Sincerely,

William J. Zimmer

[NovaraAspen]

Response to my letter:

Thank you for taking the time to contact me.

This bill is intended to return equestrian use back to State owned lands. While Federal Funding is restrictive as to how the funds are spent, it does allow for equestrian recreational use, as long as the funds are managed by the Department of Natural Resources. The question is, why would we restrict horses from riding on state-owned trails? House Bill 4684 addresses this.

While many have heard that this bill will result in a loss of Federal Funding for the State of Michigan, the truth of the matter is that the Department of Natural Resources, or DNR, has overstepped its bounds in terms of what they are allowed to control, and have abused their power many times. In the interest of the public, I sponsored this bill in order to curb the DNR's excessive behavior, and to bring them in line in order to make them more reasonable in regards to equestrian activity. In doing so, this wording mistakenly put Michigan in diversion, or in peril of losing the Federal Funding, according to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, or USFWS. We have now revised the wording so that it complies with the USFWS, Wildlife Restoration and Sport Fishing Restoration Acts, the Wildlife Conservation and Restoration Program, the State Wildlife Grants Program (non-tribal), and the Landowner Incentive Program (non-tribal).

When this issue came about four years ago, the Department of Natural Resources could have simply added 'approved for equestrian use' into their land use order and no one would have been the wiser. However, in the past four years, local communities have felt the negative impact on their community, and some businesses have been closed as a result. Equestrian activity is a Pure Michigan generator and brings in millions of dollars in tax based revenue, or at least it used to. I would like to see this thriving recreational activity returned, and for the DNR to cease continually restricting it.

Again, thank you for contacting me and if you ever have any other questions, comments, or concerns please do not hesitate to contact me again in the future.

Regards,

Representative Greg MacMaster
Michigan's 105 House District

[OneMoreMile]

I got the same reply from McMaster. His explanation is not what the bill says. It is over broad and it affects how all trails in the state are treated.

BTW - the committee meeting got moved to today - still time to call or email.

[Di_bear]

It's the Pigeon River Country equestrians who are pushing this, and their story has been plastered all over the web for all to see. Google to find more.

Update:

The committee meeting has been postponed until Thursday, November 10, 2011 at 8:30 a.m. in 308 House Office Building, Lansing, MI.

It's over. Trying to find results.

[NovaraAspen]

I got the same reply from McMaster. His explanation is not what the bill says. It is over broad and it affects how all trails in the state are treated.

BTW - the committee meeting got moved to today - still time to call or email.

This is what I responded with...

Mountain Biking is a Pure Michigan generator and brings in millions of dollars in tax based revenue. You should be very concerned with protecting this as it is far more substantial then that of equestrian revenue.

[OneMoreMile]

It passed 9-0 with these amendments:

Representative Foster offered the following amendments to HB 4684.
1. Amend page 1, line 1, by striking out all of section 504.
2. Amend page 10, line 7, after "department." by inserting "HOWEVER, THE
DEPARTMENT SHALL NOT ALLOW PACK AND SADDLE ANIMALS TO UTILIZE
PACK AND SADDLE TRAILWAYS IN A MANNER THAT VIOLATES FEDERAL
LAW OR FEDERAL GRANT REQUIREMENTS, THAT CONSTITUTES A
DIVERSION OF FUNDS UNDER THE PITTMAN-ROBERTSON WILDLIFE
RESTORATION ACT, 16 USC 669 TO 669K OR 50 CFR 80.11 AND 50 CFR 80.136, OR
THAT VIOLATES SECTION 40501.".

I'm not sure that is good for Michigan or MMBA. I hope the MMBA leadership will evaluate it and let us know.

[kalkaskawinterfest]

It passed 9-0 with these amendments:

Representative Foster offered the following amendments to HB 4684.
1. Amend page 1, line 1, by striking out all of section 504.
2. Amend page 10, line 7, after "department." by inserting "HOWEVER, THE
DEPARTMENT SHALL NOT ALLOW PACK AND SADDLE ANIMALS TO UTILIZE
PACK AND SADDLE TRAILWAYS IN A MANNER THAT VIOLATES FEDERAL
LAW OR FEDERAL GRANT REQUIREMENTS, THAT CONSTITUTES A
DIVERSION OF FUNDS UNDER THE PITTMAN-ROBERTSON WILDLIFE
RESTORATION ACT, 16 USC 669 TO 669K OR 50 CFR 80.11 AND 50 CFR 80.136, OR
THAT VIOLATES SECTION 40501.".

I'm not sure that is good for Michigan or MMBA. I hope the MMBA leadership will evaluate it and let us know.

According to Wayne Schmits office just the amendments passed not the bill. The bill it self failed and the soonest it could be looked at again will be in about two weeks. They also said this is just the committtee if it ever gets out of the committee it still has a long way to go

[Di_bear]

Where did you find those results?

[irishpitbull]

Are the amendments enforceable now?

[kalkaskawinterfest]

Where did you find those results?

Wayne's office......