This affects *all* the trails you ride

[Di_bear]

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.

Exactly. Interpretation is 9/10 of the law.

[KLydesdale]

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.

You aren't being entirely accurate here when you say that the PLRA trail was built only ~10 years ago. Significant portions of the current loop existed before that trail separation effort occurred and were used by equestrians. People rode horses on some of that trail long before anyone ever thought about riding a MTB on it.

[jajones]

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.

Exactly. Interpretation is 9/10 of the law.

This is exactly why I opposed the Waterloo Horseman's Association one-day event last Spring to ride portions of the Waterloo-Pinckney Trail to which they currently have no access. See: http://www.mmba.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=104060

These folks know what they are doing. They have an "agenda". They want to establish access, even if for a day, to trails like Waterloo, Poto, etc. so that there is precedent once this legislation gets passed.

I'm just glad they weren't permitted to use the Poto for that one-day event last Spring (they wanted to). Otherwise, they could point to this trail, on which they have historically had no access, and said, "Yep. We had access (albeit for one day) -- so the legislation applies -- now we ride the Poto and the DNR can't stop us."

Think about it people!

Last year when I got rabid about the equestrians using the non-horse/non-bike sections of Waterloo for a one day event, some in the MMBA leadership questioned why we should put energy into combating them on an access issue pertaining to a trail that doesn't even allow regular bike access. Well, now you know.

[dirt]

Last year when I got rabid about the equestrians using the non-horse/non-bike sections of Waterloo for a one day event, some in the MMBA leadership questioned why we should put energy into combating them on an access issue pertaining to a trail that doesn't even allow regular bike access. Well, now you know.

Who? Where?

I ask, because in your thread about this, you had nothing but support from the MMBA, and you sang the praise of John Gonway and the MMBA Advocacy team for being on top of this. Nobody seemed to question what you were doing. Yet, here we are, and you are once again saying that "The MMBA is against me!" If someone was truly against what you were doing, I'd like to know, and I'm sure others would be too.

Trust me Jason, Todd isn't here anymore.

[irishpitbull]

Last year when I got rabid about the equestrians using the non-horse/non-bike sections of Waterloo for a one day event, some in the MMBA leadership questioned why we should put energy into combating them on an access issue pertaining to a trail that doesn't even allow regular bike access. Well, now you know.

Who? Where?

I ask, because in your thread about this, you had nothing but support from the MMBA, and you sang the praise of John Gonway and the MMBA Advocacy team for being on top of this. Nobody seemed to question what you were doing. Yet, here we are, and you are once again saying that "The MMBA is against me!" If someone was truly against what you were doing, I'd like to know, and I'm sure others would be too.

Trust me Jason, Todd isn't here anymore.

I'm against this bickering and playing the "wait and see" what trails we lose game.

[Nelg]

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.

It will immediately put PLRA at risk unless there is clearly documented history that horses never had any access to the current MTB loop. According to a poster above, we can't even agree on that part let alone the DNR having accurate history.

Beyond that, 5175 puts it all at risk. Part of that bill is to add 15% more equine trails over the next 13 years but it does not define how they do it. Instead of building new trail, they could simply push to open up existing multi-use trails to horses. That is the big reason why that bill is so dangerous, because it's vague and left up to interpretation. It could easily sprout Ft. Custer like battles at multiple parks or state run lands.

[dennismurphy]

These folks know what they are doing. They have an "agenda". They want to establish access, even if for a day, to trails like Waterloo, Poto, etc. so that there is precedent once this legislation gets passed.

Last year when I got rabid about the equestrians using the non-horse/non-bike sections of Waterloo for a one day event, some in the MMBA leadership questioned why we should put energy into combating them on an access issue pertaining to a trail that doesn't even allow regular bike access. Well, now you know.

I remember being skeptical- I stand corrected J

[dennismurphy]

More supporting documentation

I may be mistaken but I think THIS document (Link below) is the document that started the horse-rider's drive to this legislation.

If that is the case, the bill under discussion should be completely made null and void.

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/dnr/E ... 1274_7.pdf

In a recent article ( http://articles.petoskeynews.com/2011-1 ... q_30513991 ) he boasts of the "speed at which the legislature is working" - in this case SPEED is not a good thing if this bill gets rammed through in order to be completed by the holidays


I also suggest you post on Rep MacMaster's facebook page your opposition to the bill.
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Greg-Mac ... 8355777268

There's actually a post by Rep MacMaster's in which he says

I want to thank the Michigan Horse Council Trails Committee for allowing me to explain in greater detail the purpose of HB 4684 and how mis-information caused an uproar with other recreational users. Simple fact: We need better communication within our own departments and work WITH the public and not assert authority without sound reasoning and solid based science to support their claim. Game on!

SEE UPDATE NEXT POST

[dennismurphy]

To all

After a couple of lunchtime facebook post exchanges with Representative MacMasters via his facebook site he actually called my cell.
We had a short discussion in which he expressed reasons for the legislation

A couple of items resulted from the conversation which I followed up on an email (and copied Diane)
1. he will send a pdf or link to the most recent version of the legislation which he says has some significant changes over the original
2. I extended a tentative offer to him to address the membership at the Jan 29th annual expo- I copied Diane to see if we can fit him in for an hour in the auditorium area of the Expo Center.
He expressed willingness to come talk to the membership even though he knows there may be some hostility in the air- he sounded confident his explanations would dispel that hostility so ...
Stay tuned.

It looks like we have a commitment for NOON!

Sunday, January 29, 2012
8 am Expo Setup
8:30 am Swap Meet Setup
9 am Expo Opens
9:30 to 11:00 am State Board Meeting
10 am Championship Points Series (CPS) Awards
11 am First Across the Finish Line (FAFL) Awards
12 pm Representative MacMasters discusses the "horse bill"
1 pm Keynote Speaker: Bobby McMullen
3 pm Expo Closes

[dennismurphy]

also- he doesn't expect this legislation to move out to the floor any time soon- I specifically asked if it would come to the floor in January prior to our expo

[utabintarbo]

Well, tentative kudos to him for tentatively accepting your tentative offer of what may tentatively turn out to be a bar fight.

At least we will get it straight from the "horse's mouth", so to speak.

[dennismurphy]

I had to make my invitation tentative because I am not in charge of the event scheduling and didn't know where we might fit him in -if at all.
If we can, I think he will attend. I think we should make every effort to accomodate his attendance

[dennismurphy]

I would like to know if the MMBA board has had communications with the DNR - has the DNR encouraged people to call the legislators or is that an activity we initiated of our own accord?

[irishpitbull]

Anyone interest in filming some awful horse trails with me on Saturday? I would like to send the Reps a short video of what the current state of the horse look like compared to our own.

Mayburry horse trails are disgrace and I would like to get that on film.

[dennismurphy]

To all

After a couple of lunchtime facebook post exchanges with Representative MacMasters via his facebook site he actually called my cell.
We had a short discussion in which he expressed reasons for the legislation

A couple of items resulted from the conversation which I followed up on an email (and copied Diane)
1. he will send a pdf or link to the most recent version of the legislation which he says has some significant changes over the original
2. I extended a tentative offer to him to address the membership at the Jan 29th annual expo- I copied Diane to see if we can fit him in for an hour in the auditorium area of the Expo Center.
He expressed willingness to come talk to the membership even though he knows there may be some hostility in the air- he sounded confident his explanations would dispel that hostility so ...
Stay tuned.

It looks like we have a commitment for NOON!

Sunday, January 29, 2012
8 am Expo Setup
8:30 am Swap Meet Setup
9 am Expo Opens
9:30 to 11:00 am State Board Meeting
10 am Championship Points Series (CPS) Awards
11 am First Across the Finish Line (FAFL) Awards
12 pm Representative MacMasters discusses the "horse bill"
1 pm Keynote Speaker: Bobby McMullen
3 pm Expo Closes