Critter7r wrote: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.