This affects *all* the trails you ride

[cramer]

why does everybody think that pointing out the obsurdity of the Equestrian stance is the answer?

When I see an *beep*, I think it makes sense to point them out. Emulating them is the last thing I want to do.

[dennismurphy]

Response to my letter:.............

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.

Representative Greg MacMaster
Michigan's 105 House District

this is a b.s response

a) really ? a "Pure Michigan generator bringing in millions of dollars" based on WHAT FACTS?

b) HELLO Mr McMasters, why not ask the DNR when and where they restricted it and why? There could be a reason (such as TRAIL DAMAGE etc)

[dennismurphy]

.......h the least rational legislature in modern history, .... half of them are people who think the Earth is only 5000 years old.

dang- no wonder trails erode- 5000 years isn't enough to let the soil solidify

[NovaraAspen]

Response to my letter:.............

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.

Representative Greg MacMaster
Michigan's 105 House District

this is a b.s response

a) really ? a "Pure Michigan generator bringing in millions of dollars" based on WHAT FACTS?

b) HELLO Mr McMasters, why not ask the DNR when and where they restricted it and why? There could be a reason (such as TRAIL DAMAGE etc)

a) No doubt! I wish he said this in person to me. I would have loved to see his reaction when I laughed in his face.

[Scotty]

why does everybody think that pointing out the obsurdity of the Equestrian stance is the answer?

When I see an , I think it makes sense to point them out. Emulating them is the last thing I want to do.

kumbaya

[Di_bear]

So Di,did any equestrian group/friends speak out against this bill before the committee? How far have they gone beyond speaking against this bill in private conversation? Are they button holing politicians to vote against this bill when it does come up for a vote? Reading the web site for the Pigeon River Country Trailriders , it sounds like they have it in the bag all the way to the gov.'s desk.
Any opinions I have of equestrians as a group is just that , mine. I understand and even admire the level of advocacy this one small group brings to the table. But if others in the equestrian community disagree with this particular group of equestrians , they need to step up big time to get this thing derailed.

From: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=107520&start=15#p739219

Greg, the MHC is against these bills. In fact, there are many equestrians who fear these bills will screw up the work they've done. There are many equestrian groups who do just as the MMBA does: they respectfully work with land managers to create AND maintain bridle trails. The equestrian response to these bills that I've seen is actually pretty freaked out. The only horse group that really keeps creating and recreating this problem is the smaller Back Country Horsemen who want access to Pigeon River.

Several MMBA reps, including me, have meetings over the next week concerning these bills, and we will be publishing information on the MMBA home page and in an email newsletter by the end of next week. We are working to define who our allies are, developing a plan of action with these people, and working to collect all of the facts, including non-mountain biking reasons why these bills are bad, so that we can arm you guys with the best possible information. At that point, we will call all of the members to either pick up the phone or meet with their representatives in person. If possible, and if anyone can step forward to facilitate these events, I would like it if we could have meet and greets or group rides with representatives. This is where volunteers are incredibly valuable.

[jajones]

Actually, Jason, much of the equestrian community is against these bills, and the proof is in the pudding if you actually look at the testimonies from various meetings (this evidence can most likely be found using Google and is found on the legislature's website--I know, because I had to check some people out).

The MMBA is very much effectively at work and will be releasing official info after a December 6 meeting. I prefer to illustrate the whole picture rather than hand you B.S. just to appease you. JAJ, you know from experience this is a process. You also know that we're using vacation time, lunch hours, and personal money to do the work of the MMBA. Please respect that.

No doubt that there are equestrians in opposition to these bills. I'm not contesting that. But, it isn't those equestrians that I'm concerned about. I'm concerned about the guy driving the bus, not the back seat driver chiming in with occasional directional suggestions.

Di, I'm sure that you, John Gonway and company are all responding and reacting to this legislation and working hard to do so. I'm also not contesting that and don't want to cast aspersions on your efforts. I also don't want to point fingers or say our response on this issue is inadequate. My point was simply that, collectively, we need to be more organized with proactive efforts to work with the legislative branch. Traditionally, we have focused our efforts on government's executive branch, trying to work with agencies like the DNR in a reactive way. As the equestrians have figured out, legislation is the ace in the deck that trumps all other cards. Unless I'm in the dark on some efforts to affect State legislation regarding mountain bike access, I don't think we have anything working in that arena. In fact, I was pointing out that we are headed in kind of another direction in that regard. Instead of grouping up, centralizing and working to form a unified entity such as a PAC to amass strength in numbers, we are instead decentralizing into a localized and nationalized advocacy structure. When stuff goes down at a State level, we now kind of have a void. We have two bread ends with no meat in the middle. Unfortunately, the lion's share of our state's trail inventory exist on State of Michigan lands and, when you are trying to feed the beast, it is better to have meat to throw at a lion than bread ends.

[Di_bear]

Well, the only difference with the new structure is that the state board is actually freed up to pay attention to legislation, whereas, over the past few years, we were more concerned with the IRS and other legalities. While we are still figuring out the details, each former MMBA chapter is still a member of the current MMBA, and each chapter member is, therefore, an associate "member".

Another thing we are working on--and I admit that it's been a slow process because it's mostly my project--is that we are working on opening up our email list to whoever wants to sign up for it, not just members. I'm hoping that we can greatly increase our target audience with the new mailing list, which would increase the number of people getting communications about state advocacy issues. Right now, it's only those who have had a paid membership in the last year under the old MMBA structure.

Regarding the DNR, they are not the problem. These bills are a slap in the face of the DNR and anyone who works with the DNR (us, the MHC, and any other volunteer user groups). The bill's supporters are trying to bypass the DNR.

The meetings we are attending in the upcoming week are specifically regarding this legislation, and that is the main focus of the MMBA, at this point. After we line up the ducks, we'll hand you the ammunition and let you have at it.

[ibike]

Regarding the DNR, they are not the problem. These bills are a slap in the face of the DNR and anyone who works with the DNR (us, the MHC, and any other volunteer user groups). The bill's supporters are trying to bypass the DNR.

The meetings we are attending in the upcoming week are specifically regarding this legislation, and that is the main focus of the MMBA, at this point. After we line up the ducks, we'll hand you the ammunition and let you have at it.

The efforts and updates are appreciated.

However, as Jason and others have maintained in previous posts, this is an example of our organization being reactive, rather than proactive. It is another example of how the mountain biking community (as well as hiking and other trail user groups) was blindsided by certain aggressive equestrian groups. Would there ever be a situation in which a proposed piece of legislation could slip by the MMBA unnoticed?

The suggestion of a PAC makes sense. I think it would allow more of an "offensive" approach to maintaining and enhancing our access. It would also improve the "defensive" monitoring of proposed legislation and rule changes.

[utabintarbo]

PACs are creations of money. Find funding on an ongoing basis and we may have something to talk about.

</CaptainObvious>

[Di_bear]

ibike, some of us are currently on an email list that notifies us of everything that is under consideration in the upcoming House Committee sessions; so, no, legislation isn't going to slip by unnoticed, and no, we were not blindsided. Regarding being reactive versus proactive, there's really no other way to be in this situation. Someone else proposed a bill, we found out, now we're taking action. That's the right thing to do. That's the only thing to do. If you don't like that answer, then you're going to have to provide a "proactive" item for discussion, and it has to be affordable, and if you want a more "proactive" state board, then why haven't you emailed board@mmba.org letting us know your ideas? I'm talking about specific ideas, not vague statements about how "the board is reactive versus proactive."

Regarding the current legislation, no, we haven't been standing idly by, but also realize that we can't really do much when something isn't moving through the House Committee. It was on the back burner. Now, we've got a team of experienced advocates and professionals meeting together to clarify the situation and write up a plan of action that will be posted on the MMBA website toward the end of next week; and let me be clear, this same team of people was really putting a lot of pressure on the House Committee *before* the vote, as were many other advocacy organizations. Why it passed committee is rather confusing to all involved, and we are trying to get to the bottom of that.

I know that the end result--what you guys see--always seems so easy and simple, and that may create the misconception that the MMBA is stagnant and not being proactive, but the reality is that it takes a lot of time and effort from the few key volunteers who do the dirty work to dig out the truth and then present it to you in such a nice, neat, little package. To report every little detail every part of the way is not only inefficient, but it could also be counterproductive.

Also, keep in mind that every time we elect new politicians into office, we have to take the time to educate them on old issues, because these old issues are new to them, just like this recent legislation. This is something we will be addressing as we restructure the MMBA. Yes, we are restructuring and refocusing, but that is also a process, and it won't be done tomorrow, because we have a lot on our plates, right now. Ideally, I'd like to see the MMBA become an efficient and highly-effective state advocacy organization over the next year. I have a lot of tedious work on my task list that must be done to help make that happen, but time is incredibly valuable (as are mental energy and a full pot of coffee), which is the biggest reason why this will be a slow process.

[geardaddy37]

nice response Di...and thank you, all of you for your work with this. It does seem like a very difficult row to hoe, working within the framework of government to effect change. It also at least for me...feels very frustrating. You've got a bunch of suits up at the State Capital who are obviously going to represent a particular user group, as was made clear by the response from McMaster. It seems that what may save us here is ironically the very inexpediency that all too often prevents real change in our legislative process...the many and complex rules themselves.
On a side note I think it is also ironic that although this board doesn't allow political discussion, someone has seen fit to allow this...possibly one of the most political discussions ever, and highly relevant.
perhaps a formal return to political discussion is needed?

[utabintarbo]

On a side note I think it is also ironic that although this board doesn't allow political discussion, someone has seen fit to allow this...possibly one of the most political discussions ever, and highly relevant.
perhaps a formal return to political discussion is needed?

Tread lightly! Only political discussion approved by the moderators will be allowed. Any discussion not so approved will be met with sanctions.

[SteveF]

Jesus, do you guys have to bring this crap up when folks are dealing a real threat to our trail system? Surely you can see the distinction between genuine advocacy and pointless partisan bickering. Give it a rest.

[geardaddy37]

pm sent...