This affects *all* the trails you ride

[lampenj]

I've been watching this thread as it has evolved and am hopeful that we can all work on the betterment of our sport outside of our potential differences in political, religious, and socio-economic statuses. I am disheartened a bit by some of the derogatory slights and generalizations that I know comes from a good place of passion for our sport but that can really become divisive. I would just ask that before you post about what you identify as 'the real issue' behind the decision making thought process of our legislators (or anyone), that you have factual, defendable rationale. I believe one of the strengths that the sport of Mountain Biking has compared to other hobbies is that we can and do attract participants with a wide variety of backgrounds and situations which can all be useful in advocating the sport. My hope is that we would leverage that, not just try to work together despite it. My approach would be to not throw stones because you never know who you're going to hit unintentionally.

Or I could just be mis-reading some of the undertones and none of these suggestions are necessary.....

[dennismurphy]

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.

Pointless bickering is pointless, agreed

However, management of land use is govt function.
Govts are run by people who are voted in by people
The people running them (and those that vote them in do so from distinct viewpoints
Hence their approach to land use will inherently be political to some extent

This bill is intended to return equestrian use back to State owned lands.

It should be pointed out to him that this an entirely inaccurate statement. Horses are NOT banned on state owned lands
They are only banned on SOME trails - just as all other user groups are banned on some locations and allowed in others
His bill would not "return them to trails" but instead would give them free rein over ALL lands- a privilege no other user group enjoys

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.

Also not accurate- simply having the DNR "manage the money" is NOT the qualification for Pittman Roberts funding- it is that the lands in question (state game areas) remain PRIMARILY for their purpose which is game management, hunting etc.

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....

the above is THE key sentence in my opinion.. political? yes perhaps.. we have a legislator who desires to rein in a "rogue" agency that is "abusing" its power......his website (http://gregmacmaster.com/) states he wants to "ensure that unelected state bureaucrats don't get too powerful" - looks to me like he intends to use this as a means to prove a campaign platform

...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 proof- what businesses have been closed due to the "lack of riding opportunities" ?
Again proof- how much does their activities generate?
His website (Link above) also indicates that a financial report should be done by the DNRE before enacting regulations... one would think that he has this data available then?

[dennismurphy]

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents ... B-4684.pdf

Here is a PDF of the current law and revision in this PDF show what the McMaster's bill will change

Page 3 quote " THE DEPARTMENT SHALL NOT ISSUE OR ENFORCE AN ORDER UNDER THIS SECTION THAT RESTRICTS THE USE OF PACK AND SADDLE ANIMALS ON PACK AND SADDLE TRAILWAYS AS DEFINED IN SECTION 72101."
(g) "Michigan trailway" means a trailway designated by the commission pursuant to section 72103.
(h) "Pack and saddle trailways" means trailways and equine access locations that may be used by pack and saddle animals.
(i) "Rail-trail" means a former railroad bed that is in public ownership and used as a trailway
(j) "Trail" means a right-of-way adapted to foot, horseback, motorized, or other nonmotorized travel.
(k) "Trailway" means a trail or other land corridor that features a broad trail capable of accommodating a variety of public recreation uses.

Would now read as

(g) "Michigan trailway" means a trailway designated by the commission pursuant to section 72103.
(h) "Pack and saddle trailways" means ... TRAILS and equine access locations that ... CURRENTLY ARE OR AT ANY TIME PREVIOUSLY WERE used by pack and saddle animals.
(i) "Rail-trail" means a former railroad bed that is in public ownership and used as a trailway AT ANY TIME.
(j) "Trail" means a right-of-way adapted to foot, horseback, motorized, or other nonmotorized travel.
(k) "Trailway" means a trail or other land corridor that features a broad trail capable of accommodating a variety of public recreation uses.

Then they define trails and trailways so broadly that yes, all singletrack in the state, the White Pine trail, Musketawa, etc - all should be used by horses.
It doesn't even appear that municipal or county bans could be upheld for local lands






Page 8, line 8-9 Originally provided for an advisory council with regards to FUNDING to review the reopening of previously closed trails. The modified version completely elliminates this- funding would be a problem of course- so let's just do away with the study to show the trails should be re-opened and simply just open them

Page 10 simply over-rides ANY other regulations in place in one blanket strikeout of text for the remainder of the document!

[jajones]

Now may be a good time to send our friendly legislators who "don't get it" a link to my little video journal on the impact one equestrian event can have on a trail not normally open to equestrians.

For those of you who don't remember, a bunch of us Poto Chapter (Pinckney-Waterloo R.A.) locals got our panties in a bunch when the DNR decided last spring to allow equestrians access to a large portion of the hiking only Waterloo-Pinckney Hiking Trail for a one day event. The video shot immediately Pre- and Post-event speaks for itself, documenting the severe adverse impact equestrians have on trail tread.

Somebody kick the link over to the Representatives to educate them. I've done my work.

http://www.youtube.com/user/velotracts

[jajones]

Now may be a good time to send our friendly legislators who "don't get it" a link to my little video journal on the impact one equestrian event can have on a trail not normally open to equestrians.

For those of you who don't remember, a bunch of us Poto Chapter (Pinckney-Waterloo R.A.) locals got our panties in a bunch when the DNR decided last spring to allow equestrians access to a large portion of the hiking only Waterloo-Pinckney Hiking Trail for a one day event. The video shot immediately Pre- and Post-event speaks for itself, documenting the severe adverse impact equestrians have on trail tread.

Somebody kick the link over to the Representatives to educate them. I've done my work.

http://www.youtube.com/user/velotracts

More footage available at this thread:

http://www.mmba.org/forum/viewtopic.php ... 0&start=45

[Critter7r]

Now may be a good time to send our friendly legislators who "don't get it" a link to my little video journal on the impact one equestrian event can have on a trail not normally open to equestrians.

For those of you who don't remember, a bunch of us Poto Chapter (Pinckney-Waterloo R.A.) locals got our panties in a bunch when the DNR decided last spring to allow equestrians access to a large portion of the hiking only Waterloo-Pinckney Hiking Trail for a one day event. The video shot immediately Pre- and Post-event speaks for itself, documenting the severe adverse impact equestrians have on trail tread.

Somebody kick the link over to the Representatives to educate them. I've done my work.

http://www.youtube.com/user/velotracts

More footage available at this thread:

http://www.mmba.org/forum/viewtopic.php ... 0&start=45

Someone mentioned a few posts after the video that it may have been too static, that maybe more interaction would be nice. I was thinking the same thing: get out there before hand and show a bike going up the hill pre-horses, and then again the next day after the horses went through. As tough as the MOAH (Mother Of All Hills) was before the horses went thru, I'm sure that it was next to impossible afterwards; like trying to pedal up a sand dune.

P.S. I'd be curious to see how that trail looks now, 6 months later.

[dennismurphy]

I've written to my State Rep twice now and gotten NO reply-

First email was three-four weeks ago.
When I received no response, I found that email and forwarded it to him with additional details last weekend
Still no response

next step is a direct phone call


*I also emailed the DNR with regards to the issue at Ft Custer and trails being built for the equestrians... it is suspected they aren't doing their own trailwork and the DNR is using our park fees to build their trails.

[dennismurphy]

Nov 28
Representative Agema

I am writing to inform you of my opposition to HB4684.

While ostensibly to provide equestrians greater access to trails in the state- the actual effect would be to risk the loss of millions of dollars of federal funds (Pittman Roberts funding for state game areas), as well as risk increased user group conflicts, and damage to potentially sensitive trails.

The Michigan DNR has a tough job and there's no doubt that often they seem not be as responsive as user groups would like. I know that from involvement in an active user group (Michigan Mountain Biking Association). However, our group approaches the DNR on a case by case basis for different recreation areas. We also approach local land managers (counties and municipalites) in a similar manner. Often they have a good reason for denying access to some areas, while being open and receptive to other areas for access.

This bill however would not only overturn state agreements with the federal government (though Rep McMaster's said this aspect has been modified) it would also run roughshod over local control of park lands forcing counties or cities to allow horse riding even if their park plans have been set otherwise.

You should also be aware that the equestrian advocates of this law are NOT representative of all the equestrians in the state- the one's that oppose it do their advocacy much as I described above with the MMBA- they recognize the need to work with land managers (state and local) for the best solution and access. The group pushing this legislation doesn't want to work on access on such a manner (which, frankly, requires work) but rather they want to enlist the Michigan legislature do short cut this advocacy work and get blanket access to trails without regards to any studies or science to validate access.

Thanks

Dec 7th
Representative Agema:
I am just following up on this issue with you as this seems to become a more urgent issue.

Singular issues isolated to one trail conflict should NOT drive legislative action to overturn policy for the entire state. The equestrians may or may not have had legitimate issue with DNR policy with regards to Pigeon River Game Area. And maybe the DNR didn't have a fair or open enough dispute resolution mechanism. But simply because the equestrians at Pigeon River felt wronged on in being denied access at that land area should NOT mean that legislation should occur to overturn all access decisions in the entire state to favor this one group.

As a mountainbike rider, I am routinely denied access to certain areas Some denials I understand and accept. Other denials I disagree with but accept as the best option to lengthy disputes given the area in question. Some denials are worth disputing. But to change the entire state for my one dispute would not be rational

Please assist in quelling this inappropriate legislative activity.

Dec 9th
Thank you for contacting me, I appreciate hearing from you. HB 4684 is still in the Committee on Natural Resources, Tourism, and Outdoor Recreation. I am aware of the concerns in regards to the amount of spending as well as damage to the trails. I am looking at all of that, and I will be sure and keep your thoughts in mind as this issue comes to the floor for a vote. Again, thank you for writing me, feel free to contact my office with any other questions or comments.

Sincerely,
Dave Agema
State Representative-74th District

Dec 9th
Thank you for the response. I can appreciate that the issue is still in committee. Once on the floor and a vote is taken, essentially that is the end of the ability to convince anyone of a direction one way or the other.

In light of this, I am naturally curious as to which way you would vote on this bill and why. If I understand your leaning position and reasons for this, I can perhaps provide you with any additional details that might be needed in advance of a vote.

Sincerly

Dennis B Murphy

[Di_bear]

As usual, mine is much longer than I'd prefer, but I try to be thorough. I will be tailoring it and sending it on to other politicians.

Mr. MacMaster,

I am very sorry that I was unable to attend last week's Michigan Horse Council meeting as I looked forward to meeting you. As an avid trail user, I've had the pleasure of building, maintaining, and enjoying Michigan trails such as those in Copper Harbor, Grand Rapids, and now, the Greater Detroit Area. Building and maintaining trails is truly a labor of love––hand tools make for slow trail development.

My fellow volunteers and I raise money to purchase those tools and materials that are necessary for building not only a fun trail, but one that resists erosion and will be sustainable for many years to come. You see, our goal is to enjoy our public lands with minimal impact to the surrounding environment. We recognize that our public lands are a privilege, and we, as volunteers, are stewards of that land.

The benefit to the State of Michigan is that we now have mountain bike trails all across the state, trails that were built without cost to the State of Michigan. The reason we were allowed to build these trails is that we also took the time to cultivate a respectful relationship with the DNR and other land managers, and proved the value of our word by building quality trails that we continue to maintain. If a trail is in need of repair, we repair it; again, at no cost to the State of Michigan.

Unfortunately, the soil throughout most of Michigan is very sensitive. A horse hoof divot will stop the proper drainage of water and will eventually escalate into a larger puddle that mountain bikers and hikers will go around, thus widening the trail and usually turning into a horrible, muddy mess. This prevents us from achieving our goal of having minimal impact on the surrounding environment. We do have short sections of shared trail in Lower Michigan that serve as overwhelming proof of this incompatibility. As a former equestrian of 15 years, I have also witnessed this, firsthand.

The passage of HB 4684 and HB 5175 will not only cost the State of Michigan the benefits of hundreds of volunteers, but it will unfairly favor equestrians over other user groups; nullify last year's legislation regarding the Michigan Snowmobile and Trails Advisory Council (MSTAC) that both the Michigan Horse Council (MHC) and the Michigan Mountain Biking Association (MMBA) support and would like to move forward with; and prevent the DNR from appropriately managing our public lands so that recreational users may continue to enjoy it without negatively impacting this valuable asset. In addition, allowing this bill to move out of the House Committee will force advocacy organizations––mountain biking, equestrian, and others––to waste money on legal council and transportation, money that should go into improving and expanding Michigan's trail network. In fact, the equestrian group that supports these bills could put their money to better use if they would do as other user groups have, and work to cultivate respectful relationships with local land managers and build their own trail network. The current law supports this activity, but the user group has to be willing to do the work, something that all of us opposed to these bills have proven is not too much to ask.

Lastly, I would like to point you to three resources. The first will help you understand the origination of this bill and why the Back Country Horsemen were banned from the Pigeon River Country Forest, to begin with. The second will illustrate what really goes into building a mountain bike trail. The MMBA and other mountain biking organizations within the state adhere to trail building standards that were developed by the U.S. Forest Service and the International Mountain Bicycling Association. The third source is a listing of mountain bike trails, the great majority of which are maintained by volunteers, not necessarily IMBA or MMBA members. While this list is not complete, it is extensive. Also, volunteers are currently building new trails.

• MLive, DNR takes fair stance for Pigeon River: http://www.mlive.com/outdoors/index.ssf ... _pige.html
• IMBA, Designing and Building Sustainable Trails: http://www.imba.com/resources/trail-bui ... ble-trails
• MMBA Trail Guide: http://www.mmba.org/trail-guide

Thank you for taking the time to consider my concerns and for evaluating the resources I have provided. I look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

Diane Ursu

[skieur]

I just got this in my inbox from Rick Olson. One of the lines say's "Pack and sale animals" I think that is a typo.

[Thank you for contacting my office regarding house Bill 4684.

This bill would amend multiple sections of the natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act and remove most of the provisions related to pack and saddle animal trailways.

The new rules would read:
(1) Pack and saddle animals shall be allowed to access pack and saddle trail ways on public land managed by the Department of Natural Resources, and (2) a person shall not use pack and saddle animals on state-owned land except on pack and saddle trailways.

The bill would prohibit the DNR from issuing or enforcing an order under Section 504 that restricts the use of pack and sale animals on pack and saddle trailways.

Additionally the bill would revise the definition of pack and saddle trailways to: "trails and equine access locations that currently are or at any time previously were used by pack and saddle animals."

In the current year, FY 2010-11, Michigan receives $24.5 million in federal funding for wildlife-related programs. Funding is contingent upon compliance with certain federal laws and regulations. According to the Department, the provisions of House Bill 4684 would likely jeopardize Michigan's receipt of this federal funding.

The bill has been referred to the Committee on Natural Resources, Tourism, and Outdoor Recreation. If the bill is referred to the House for a vote I will carefully consider the impact of the legislation and will keep your concerns in mind when voting.

Thank you again for contacting my office. Please feel free to contact my office at any time with any additional state related issues or concerns.

Rick Olson, State Representative, 55th District
517-373-1792
989 House Office Bldg.
http://repolson.com
rolson@house.mi.gov]

[dennismurphy]

If the bill is referred to the House for a vote I will carefully consider the impact of the legislation and will keep your concerns in mind when voting.

Just like my rep- he won't give you an indication of which way he will vote should the bill(s) come to the floor- only that he will "consider your concerns" when he votes- at which point it is TOO LATE to try to convince him otherwise.

[ihateplaindave]

Be afraid, be very afraid. If these guys felt the same way as you did, they would happily say so. This business of "careful consideration" is a way of blowing you off.

[Di_bear]

If the bill is referred to the House for a vote I will carefully consider the impact of the legislation and will keep your concerns in mind when voting.

Just like my rep- he won't give you an indication of which way he will vote should the bill(s) come to the floor- only that he will "consider your concerns" when he votes- at which point it is TOO LATE to try to convince him otherwise.

To be fair, I would say the same thing if I were a rep. The fact is, they have no idea what this bill is going to look like when it comes out of committee. In addition, it may undergo further changes in the House and Senate. The bill that passed, last year, was wildly different than what had been introduced.

[dennismurphy]

I'm reminded of scenes in the movie "American President' in which lobbyist olayed by Annette Benning has a target to meet in terms of legislators commitments on a specific piece of legislation and works to add each legislator to a commitment tally to ensure passage of her bill.

If we are already engaging a lobbyist in Lansing, perhaps the same tactic needs to be worked? If the proposed bill is circulated by our lobbyist to all legislators with a follow up visit to insist on a commitment to vote against it- perhaps it can be killed in committee? At the very least this tactic should be used ON the committee members to start

[Nelg]

As usual, mine is much longer than I'd prefer, but I try to be thorough. I will be tailoring it and sending it on to other politicians.

Lastly, I would like to point you to three resources. The first will help you understand the origination of this bill and why the Back Country Horsemen were banned from the Pigeon River Country Forest, to begin with.

Like the letter Di, although I the BCH guys were never banned. They were simply told they had to stay on certain trails when they were allowed to bushwhack where ever they wanted before. Only hikers and hunters can off trail year round. Snowmobiles are allowed to as well in most cases in the winter when the snow prevents damage to the underlying forest floor.

Either way, it's going pretty far to try and use state law to trump the DNR in to letting a couple dozen guys roam free on horses again.