HB 4684 - Immediate action needed!

[G.Cook]

Rantings against Imba are mis-guided, we would be much better served by using that energy to rally against this legislation.

Personally I have a very pessimistic view that this legislation can be stopped or even modified to take other rec. users groups interests into account. I suspect any trail within ANY state rec. area that we have access to is in the cross hairs of equestrians. No matter the statements of the resident DNR Land Mgr. to the contrary. I can see them taking over any trail we maintain or even develop on state land. Good by Waterloo , so long Poto. Which is way I'm thinking I cut my last bench cut on state land yesterday.

As for IMBA , if IMBA is nothing more then a glorified "payroll company" then they need to stop beating themselves on the chest on how they are this awesome advocacy organization. I'm sure it's some what galling to see pronouncements by IMBA on how they have won access here or any where that was actually accomplished by a local organisations.

[Loren]

One advantage that the NRA has is that most of their politics are black and white.

This is local, nuanced legislation. In many areas of the country, mountain bikers need to work arm in arm with equestrian groups to open trail, and the volume of traffic and soil composition support this partnership. The circumstances here are different. While we all recognize that this legislation is not really pro or anti equestrian and it's really about the DNR's ability to manage state resources, we have to recognize that superficially it appears that this bill is pro equestrian and our stance against this legislation appears to be a stance against equestrians.

It would be an interesting exercise to craft exactly how an IMBA 'call to arms' for this issue might read so that it is palatable and actionable by members throughout the country.

[dirt]

As for IMBA , if IMBA is nothing more then a glorified "payroll company" then they need to stop beating themselves on the chest on how they are this awesome advocacy organization. I'm sure it's some what galling to see pronouncements by IMBA on how they have won access here or any where that was actually accomplished by a local organisations.

IMBA Chapter Program <> IMBA. IMBA still maintains it's own members, it's own membership, and the money from that is used for national advocacy, such as the National Bike Summit in Washington DC, which occurred last week. If you are an IMBA member, and not an IMBA Chapter member, your money goes toward IMBA, and national advocacy.

The IMBA Chapter Program is for local IMBA Chapters, and it's main purpose is to ease the administrative/business burden of running local advocacy clubs. The membership money is shared between the local chapters and the IMBA Chapter Program (yes, the membership money from IMBA chapters that IMBA receives stays in the Chapter Program, and goes toward paying the costs of the program (Regional Directors, employees of the chapter program, etc)

The IMBA Chapter Program WAS NEVER INTENDED to replace local advocacy of the existing chapters, but to reduce the business aspects of running the local chapters.

[Critter7r]

One advantage that the NRA has is that most of their politics are black and white.

This is local, nuanced legislation. In many areas of the country, mountain bikers need to work arm in arm with equestrian groups to open trail, and the volume of traffic and soil composition support this partnership. The circumstances here are different. While we all recognize that this legislation is not really pro or anti equestrian and it's really about the DNR's ability to manage state resources, we have to recognize that superficially it appears that this bill is pro equestrian and our stance against this legislation appears to be a stance against equestrians.

It would be an interesting exercise to craft exactly how an IMBA 'call to arms' for this issue might read so that it is palatable and actionable by members throughout the country.

I think you already stated how that call to arms should read: This bill ties the hands of the DNR's and their ability to manage the lands that they are charged with managing.

It is a Catch-22 of epic proportions and sidesteps and nullifies due process by allowing the equestrians to do whatever they like wherever they want with impunity. Whether this bill was for equestrians or hikers or mushroom hunters, we should still be against it simply because it elevates that one user group above and to the detriment of all others.

[Leroi Brown]

This could certainly become a national issue; should this legislation pass in MI, then who's to say which state is next? This could open the floodgate for other equestrian organizations in other states to start pushing similar legislation. Thus, a very good reason to employ the help of the IMBA's backing on this (for now) local issue, in supplement to the MMBA's efforts!

[Washington Rider]

This type of cause needs local troops to fight for the cause which is why MMBA is still in place. We have a team of dedicated volunteers fighting the cause at the state level with the help of a paid lobbyist. Your membership dues are being put to good use. However, it does not guarantee victory.

Our most effective weapon will be each member contacting their local House Representative and hounding them until they get the message that there other user groups out there besides equestrians.

On that note, Advocacy Day is coming up on May 23rd. We have co-sponsored this event with LMB and MGTA for the last couple of years. This year will be a great opportunity to maximize our presence in Lansing. Mark your calendars and take a day off from work to support the cause.

We are all frustrated and disgusted with this process and it is nice that we have a forum to vent our frustration. Please take a moment to vent to your Rep, if you have not done so already. If you have, keep following up until you get commitment from them.

[kalkaskawinterfest]

In talking with McMaster's office today. They said they had two amendments from the mmba they have been looking at, and they seem to be ok with atleast one. He said the name was Todd {mmba rep for Lansing}? Maybe an update from somebody on the front line is needed?

[dennismurphy]

Rantings against Imba are mis-guided, we would be much better served by using that energy to rally against this legislation.

Actually my comment was not a "rant" against IMBA at all- it was simply a means to clarify where our dollars go and for what benefits.

I was merely clarifying that we are effectively paying $18 for membership services.

[cramer]

I sent an e-mail to my rep last week. I know him personally from working with him when he was the Cannon Township supervisor a couple of years ago, but not really well. I was kind of bummed to hear back from his aid instead of from him directly. Here is what he wrote:

Micheal,

It is very unlikely that this bill would pass, especially given that Michigan would stand to lose 24.5 million dollars in federal funding by failing to comply with their guidelines.

Our office has been watching this bill over the last few months and Rep. MacGregor is not in favor of this legislation.

Again, I don't foresee this passing the house. Please call or email me directly with any questions. Thank you.

Sincerely,


Phil Yeiter
Legislative Assistant
Representative Peter MacGregor, 73rd District

I replied back saying that what concerns me is that everyone is against it due to funding issues but there are other reasons to be against this. They're working on amending it so that the funding isn't the issue and so will people be in favor of it then? I told him my concerns went beyond the funding and I thought that it was an improper use of our legal system to try to micromanage the DNR and that it was a bad precedent. I made it clear that I'm not against equestrians gaining or re-gaining more access to public lands, I'm against dictating this to the DNR on behalf of one user group only using legislation to effectively over-ride their decision. If I get anything else back I'll post it up, though I didn't ask for a reply.

[MLSGA]

Longtime MMBA members/post writers such as myself ,J.Jones and others have long predicted this day would come for the MB community. One can see posts from a decade or so ago foreseeing a day when the EQ community, through intense lobbying efforts,social- political affiliations and robust finacial support would render other trail users efforts to "share the the trail" useless. Only in the last 2-3 years have MMBA officials recognized the ulterior agenda of the EQ community and it's inability to bargain in good faith. Over decades of trail building/maintanence ,my observation is that the EQ communities greatest weakness lies in their lack of physicallity or the ability to get off their "high horse" and get their hands dirty. In the field they always seek the path of least resistance and will at every opportunity go around obstacles and create new paths rather than using existing trails that need clearing. Creative trail building and selective trail maintenence is key and has proven to be one of many tools used to discourage trail degradation and overuse by the EQ community.With few exceptions, the modern equestrian lacks the time/resources to contribute to a recreational environment created by others.(When was the last time you seen an EQ with a Pulaski,or pruners).If allowed to pass, this legislation could possibly after time, prove to undermine their efforts and expose their activities for the detrimental impact they create for other sportsman.

[Critter7r]

It may expose their lack of effort at trailbuilding, but they'll be laughing all the way around that logpile on their local mtb singletrack.

[Washington Rider]

UPDATE
Following the committee session on March 20th, we did propose two amendments directly to McMasters that would further dilute the language of the proposed legislation. One of the proposed changes is to revert a definition back to its original form. The parts they added are capitalized, the parts deleted are in red:

"Pack and saddle trailways" means trailways TRAILS and equine access locations that may be used CURRENTLY ARE OR AT ANY TIME PREVIOUSLY WERE DESIGNATED BY THE DEPARTMENT FOR USE by pack and saddle animals.

The other change we proposed is to ensure the DNR has the ability to manage user conflict without a lot of red tape. I have not included the actual language because it is long and very difficult to follow in context.

I have heard mixed reports on them liking one or both amendments but we have not heard any formal response. Until then, my assumption is we continue to oppose it. As someone noted, for many of the Reps it seems to be only about the loss of funding. I have been hitting my Rep hard with the fact this language elevates a single user group above all others and hinders the DNR’s ability to manage user conflict.

Finally, I think I have mentioned before but this bill is on hold until they hear back from Fish & Game, yet again reinforcing that it seems to be about the $.

We (MMBA) are still pursuing all possible angles of attack. I personally want to thank everyone who has made an active effort to contact their Rep. If there is one thing Reps appear to care about more than funding, it is the possibility they may have constituents who will not vote for them in the next election.

[BigMike]

I know many seats are up for grab tho year sine it is an election year. They have already started handing out literature so a message saying they will loose your vote means more this year than last

[jrshome]

I have already e-mailed my representative, but just posted on her Facebook page, asking for her stance in a public forum. Maybe something that others are already doing, but seems like a way that has not been mentioned as a way to make them take a stance and explain what they are thinking

[SteveF]

I have already e-mailed my representative, but just posted on her Facebook page, asking for her stance in a public forum. Maybe something that others are already doing, but seems like a way that has not been mentioned as a way to make them take a stance and explain what they are thinking

That's not a bad idea, tho I fear it may draw some public to support for this bill. People like horsies. People that don't use trails that they ruin and *beep* all over that is...hit the damage aspect hard and maybe theyll see the light! I don't do facebuck or I'd weigh in.