This affects *all* the trails you ride

[jimh]

Can someone help with more specifics please? I would like to provide some comments to my representative on how this affects me personally, but I'm not sure which trails have "EVER" been used by horses.

I live in SE Michigan. Are trails at Maybury, Island Lake, Pontiac Lake, Poto, and Highland at risk?

[TFKDave]

I've also been watching this thread with interest. My rep isn't on the committee, so it seems somewhat premature for me to write to her, but I'm thinking about writing to the Chair of the committee as a "Michigan constituent" and copy my representative. I will point out that this bill would impact all of use across the state - particularly for parks like Maybury where horses are already a big part of the park.

Wondering where things stand with the committee, and if you all mind if I swipe various parts from your already well-worded letters (though I will be adding my own personal flair... which will mean that I have to come up with some flair).

[ihateplaindave]

"I live in SE Michigan. Are trails at Maybury, Island Lake, Pontiac Lake, Poto, and Highland at risk?"

Bet on it!

[Nelg]

Can someone help with more specifics please? I would like to provide some comments to my representative on how this affects me personally, but I'm not sure which trails have "EVER" been used by horses.

I live in SE Michigan. Are trails at Maybury, Island Lake, Pontiac Lake, Poto, and Highland at risk?

Pontiac lake is at big risk, the wording of the law makes all the trails there fair game as soon as this bill is signed because they were once shared trails. Any trail or pathway that was once open to saddle and pack animals is re-opened to that type of traffic immediately. Pontiac lake has some erosion issues in spots as it is, horses will make some sections miserable. Highland and Maybury have the potential of quickly getting out of hand because there are already horse trails there. All it takes is a group of riders approaching the trails group that is entirely equine led to review for opening and the fight begins. You will have a Fort Custer like battle going again, however the DNR's hands may be tied.

The bottom line for everyone is that this bill puts control of all trails in the state under one user group instead of the multi-user advisory counsel that was assembled last year. Your interests will no longer be represented because a very small group of horseback riders lost the ability to roam where ever they pleased in the Pigeon River Forest. Their goal in this bill is to bypass the DNR and legislate what they want while making the rest of the trail users bend to their needs instead of everyone working together to come assemble use plans in which all groups are represented.

[irishpitbull]

Can someone help with more specifics please? I would like to provide some comments to my representative on how this affects me personally, but I'm not sure which trails have "EVER" been used by horses.

I live in SE Michigan. Are trails at Maybury, Island Lake, Pontiac Lake, Poto, and Highland at risk?

Pontiac lake is at big risk, the wording of the law makes all the trails there fair game as soon as this bill is signed because they were once shared trails. Any trail or pathway that was once open to saddle and pack animals is re-opened to that type of traffic immediately. Pontiac lake has some erosion issues in spots as it is, horses will make some sections miserable. Highland and Maybury have the potential of quickly getting out of hand because there are already horse trails there. All it takes is a group of riders approaching the trails group that is entirely equine led to review for opening and the fight begins. You will have a Fort Custer like battle going again, however the DNR's hands may be tied.

The bottom line for everyone is that this bill puts control of all trails in the state under one user group instead of the multi-user advisory counsel that was assembled last year. Your interests will no longer be represented because a very small group of horseback riders lost the ability to roam where ever they pleased in the Pigeon River Forest. Their goal in this bill is to bypass the DNR and legislate what they want while making the rest of the trail users bend to their needs instead of everyone working together to come assemble use plans in which all groups are represented.

Very well put.

[dirt]

Can someone help with more specifics please? I would like to provide some comments to my representative on how this affects me personally, but I'm not sure which trails have "EVER" been used by horses.

I live in SE Michigan. Are trails at Maybury, Island Lake, Pontiac Lake, Poto, and Highland at risk?

Pontiac lake is at big risk, the wording of the law makes all the trails there fair game as soon as this bill is signed because they were once shared trails. Any trail or pathway that was once open to saddle and pack animals is re-opened to that type of traffic immediately.

..and the existing trail at PLRA has NEVER been open to horse. The existing horse trail is the original shared trail. The existing MTB trail was purpose built for MTBing, and the horse continued to use what was the shared trail.

[Nelg]

Can someone help with more specifics please? I would like to provide some comments to my representative on how this affects me personally, but I'm not sure which trails have "EVER" been used by horses.

I live in SE Michigan. Are trails at Maybury, Island Lake, Pontiac Lake, Poto, and Highland at risk?

Pontiac lake is at big risk, the wording of the law makes all the trails there fair game as soon as this bill is signed because they were once shared trails. Any trail or pathway that was once open to saddle and pack animals is re-opened to that type of traffic immediately.

..and the existing trail at PLRA has NEVER been open to horse. The existing horse trail is the original shared trail. The existing MTB trail was purpose built for MTBing, and the horse continued to use what was the shared trail.

Granted, but if that history has been lost and there is no documentation left from prior park managers then we could still be fighting an uphill battle. Just assuming PLRA would be safe is a risky bet.

[dirt]

Can someone help with more specifics please? I would like to provide some comments to my representative on how this affects me personally, but I'm not sure which trails have "EVER" been used by horses.

I live in SE Michigan. Are trails at Maybury, Island Lake, Pontiac Lake, Poto, and Highland at risk?

Pontiac lake is at big risk, the wording of the law makes all the trails there fair game as soon as this bill is signed because they were once shared trails. Any trail or pathway that was once open to saddle and pack animals is re-opened to that type of traffic immediately.

..and the existing trail at PLRA has NEVER been open to horse. The existing horse trail is the original shared trail. The existing MTB trail was purpose built for MTBing, and the horse continued to use what was the shared trail.

Granted, but if that history has been lost and there is no documentation left from prior park managers then we could still be fighting an uphill battle. Just assuming PLRA would be safe is a risky bet.

Actually, if they want access to trails, they have to prove they HAD access to trails. That trail was only build ~10 year ago, it's not ancient history.

This is a bad law, but making up *beep* about which trails it would affect is only tilting at windmills, and we should be careful that the arguments we use are ACCURATE.

[Di_bear]

If your rep isn't on the committee and you don't want to write to one of the other reps, another really good person to educate is the Speaker of the House.

[dennismurphy]

Can someone help with more specifics please? I would like to provide some comments to my representative on how this affects me personally, but I'm not sure which trails have "EVER" been used by horses.

I live in SE Michigan. Are trails at Maybury, Island Lake, Pontiac Lake, Poto, and Highland at risk?

Pontiac lake is at big risk, the wording of the law makes all the trails there fair game as soon as this bill is signed because they were once shared trails. Any trail or pathway that was once open to saddle and pack animals is re-opened to that type of traffic immediately.

..and the existing trail at PLRA has NEVER been open to horse. The existing horse trail is the original shared trail. The existing MTB trail was purpose built for MTBing, and the horse continued to use what was the shared trail.

Granted, but if that history has been lost and there is no documentation left from prior park managers then we could still be fighting an uphill battle. Just assuming PLRA would be safe is a risky bet.

I agree with Nelg- I think the law an have wide interpretation and for an equestrian group to present some "history" might not be that farfetched depending on who is reviewing the history and the details.


The Red and Green Loops at Ft Custer were built by mountainbikers and did not include horses in their build plans- nor did horses ride them for a decade. Then a few years ago (5-7) the local DNR guy said the trails were " multi-use" and horses strarted riding these trails too. Can they now assert they have "historical" access to the Red and Green based on 5-7 years of history? I think they could.

It's common for legislation to be vaguely worded or open to interpretation - I remember a certain state constitutional amendment a few years back that passed under the assurances of its supporters that it would not do certain things... that however has proven false and the reach of that legislation has gone beyond what its supporters claimed it would go and has actually affected the aspects that the opponents claimed it would.

IMO- pretty much all trails are at risk

[utabintarbo]

It's common for legislation to be vaguely worded or open to interpretation - I remember a certain state constitutional amendment a few years back that passed under the assurances of its supporters that it would not do certain things... that however has proven false and the reach of that legislation has gone beyond what its supporters claimed it would go and has actually affected the aspects that the opponents claimed it would.

IMO- pretty much all trails are at risk

QFT. We should labor under the assumption of the worst case scenario, because there is likely someone out there who is laboring towards that as their best-case scenario.

It's a balance thing.

[cramer]

Wondering if there might be a story here, something the press might stick their nose in? Anyone have any contacts?

[Di_bear]

Wondering if there might be a story here, something the press might stick their nose in? Anyone have any contacts?

This idea has been thrown around, but nothing has come of it, yet, that I know of.

[jimh]

Just to recap what I've heard... This is bad legislation because it restores access to all trails equestrians have ever used, which is overkill for the true purpose of providing equestrian access to Pigeon River. This has the associated risk that it will have unintended consequences in other areas. But there is no clear indication that it will affect Maybury, Pontiac Lake, Poto, Island Lake, or Highland. Did I get that right?

Not trying to be difficult - just trying to get the facts straight.

[Critter7r]

Whether or not it actually affects those trails legally, I get the feeling from the limited equestrain contact I've had in the past that if legislation like this passes, the equestrians will take it to mean that they have free reign over any trail they wish to ride. Regardless of its origin. As was mentioned earlier, the current PLRA trail was created by and for MTB'ers and the current horse trail is the only trail to which equestrians have ever had access. So, theoretically, the horses shouldn't have access to the current mtb trail, but I fear that they will play dumb and ride on the trails anyhow. And other mtb trails with less well-documented histories will be in even more danger of being horse toilets.