Equestrian Right to Ride Bills

[johnnyg]

For an update and report on the Equestrian Right to Ride Bills go here:

To have an impact in the future on subjects like this go here:

Edit: removing links to threads about "old" legislation. Please read the post, below, for an update regarding current legislation.

[Di_bear]

Thank you to Todd Tennis for putting this together.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Although the Michigan Legislature passed comprehensive trail use legislation in 2010, the horse and pack-animal lobby is pushing hard for another bite at the apple. Their greatest goal is to enact so-called “Right to Ride” legislation which would guarantee equestrian access to all areas currently used by horse and pack-animals, or that were EVER used by horse and pack-animals. In its most extreme form, the legislation would seem to allow equestrians to lay claim to new trails just by riding on them.

Grassroots Communication

Rep. Foster’s office says that they have already received a multitude of emails from mountain bikers on this issue. This has gone a long way toward making Rep. Foster more sympathetic to the MMBA’s point of view. Great job!

Now other members of the House Natural Resources Committee need to hear the message as well. It is most effective when legislators hear from their own constituents, so MMBA members should try to write to their own state representatives and senators about this issue.

Key Legislators

Members of the House Natural Resources, Tourism, and Outdoor Recreation Committee are:

Rep. Frank Foster (R-Pellston) - frankfoster@house.mi.gov
Rep. Matt Huuki (R-Atlantic Mine) - matthuuki@house.mi.gov
Rep. Kurt Damrow (R-Austin) - kurtdamrow@house.mi.gov
Rep. Holly Hughes (R-White River Twp) - hollyhughes@house.mi.gov
Rep. Joel Johnson (R-Clare) - joeljohnson@house.mi.gov
Rep. Peter Pettalia (R-Presque Isle) - peterpetallia@house.mi.gov
Rep. Wayne Schmidt (R-Traverse City) - wayneschmidt@house.mi.gov
Rep. Harold Haugh (D-Roseville) - haroldhaugh@house.mi.gov
Rep. Tim Bledsoe (D-Gross Pointe) - timbledsoe@house.mi.gov
Rep. Dian Slavens (D-Canton) - dianslavens@house.mi.gov
Rep. Maureen Stapleton (D-Detroit) - maureenstapleton@house.mi.gov

Message

MMBA members are encouraged to use their own stories and anecdotes when discussing this legislation with their legislator; however, they should try to include one or more of the following talking points:

• HB 4684 and HB 5175 both unfairly elevate equestrian trail users above all other user groups in terms of statutory protections. Both bills grant equestrian users trail access and designations that other user groups would not be entitled to.
• The Legislature just passed comprehensive trail use reform last year and they should let that process move forward before coming up with new legislation. A major component of that legislation was the establishment of the Michigan Snowmobile and Trails Advisory Council (MSTAC). The purpose of this committee was to address user group access issues such as those driving these bills.
• The statewide Snowmobile and Trails Advisory Council – made up of representatives from all trail user groups – would become a meaningless body should HB 4684 pass.
• The Legislation passed last year created a number of criteria the DNR must meet before it may restrict access to a trail network; it also gives trail users opportunities to contest the restrictions. Introducing new legislation at this point would void the progress that has been made adhering to these criteria.
• The DNR should be allowed to continue to manage access to trails for any user groups in the interest of public safety, maintenance, or in furtherance of the state goals for a certain area. User groups such as the MMBA have established that it is possible to partner with the DNR to gain access to state land for trail systems.

[KonaNiner]

Emails sent. Very important issue.

[irishpitbull]

Also emailed them. I'm clueless to why horseman want to share trails with bikers. It just increases the danger for both parties and from my research it proves much more dangerous for the Equestrians. I did some research into places like Colorado and Utah that share trails with both parties. By doing a simple search on forums like mtbr or cmc.org, there is nearly a report a week of bikers spooking horses causing either an argument or equestrian being tossed from their horse.

[Di_bear]

irishpitbull, the reality of this bill is that equestrians don't want to share trails with us. A small group of equestrians want unbridled access to the Pigeon River Country trails. THAT is what this is all about. This small group of equestrians is causing trouble for everyone else, including our equestrian counterpart, the Michigan Horse Council. They were banned from these trails a few years ago due to their own poor behavior. In fact, we were also banned, even though the MMBA was responsible for building and maintaining our IMBA epic trail.

DNR takes fair stance for Pigeon River
April 18, 2008

"We initially got information that there were (mountain-bike oriented) user conflicts out there," said Mindy Koch, the agency's resource management deputy. "But what we heard in the work group is, 'If bikers are on certain trails, we don't see a conflict of use.' "

That work group was convened to examine the issues closely. Its members were hunters, anglers, snowmobilers, mountain bikers and equestrians.

The agency's initial recommendations called for tighter restrictions on bikes, horses and snowmobiles. New snowmobile rules went into place right away, but cyclists and equestrians chaffed. Both felt unfairly put upon.

"With mountain bikes there turned out not to be a problem," Koch said.

But that wasn't the case for horseback users. The problems turned out to be considerable and many.

They rode cross country, making their own trails. They boasted of getting so close to elk that they could reach out and touch them. They disturbed elk and other wildlife. They caused vegetative damage and showed up on trails where they were not allowed.

"Where there was work group consensus that bikers were not a problem, there was no consensus on any issue pertaining to horses," Koch said.

Worse yet, no middle ground could be found. Where cyclists made a clear case about their use of the forest, their impact and their commitment to maintaining trails there, equestrians simply wanted to stop the clock.

"They didn't want anything to change from the past ...," said Koch. "It was very polarized. There was no middle ground and they put nothing on the table other than to request that we put the decision in abeyance for a year."

Access to public land is a privilege we all can enjoy, but those gates should swing shut for those who abuse it.

When they didn't get their way, they decided to put forth a bill that would impact the entire state.

I can't stress enough that all equestrians do NOT support this bill. Most--in fact, those who do exactly what we do, but for horses--are against this bill because they understand and appreciate the current system. They also have good work relationships with land managers. The equestrians behind the bill want access without the work. They feel entitled to the trails that we (both the MMBA and MHC clubs) have built with our own sweat and money.

This bill is all about a local issue.

In fact, you might want to reference the above article when educating your representative(s). It's amazing how the back-story can affect current perception.

[irishpitbull]

Diane thank you for that information. I will use it to educate the reps on the list you provided us. Thank you for your hard work.

Steve

[Paladin54]

I am not a member but I am new to mountain biking and am interested in this issue as a biker an a hiker. I have contacted the reps listed as well.

[2WheeledWarrior]

I sent my emails addressing the fact that each trail user group has conflicts with all the others and that our current system is based on that with the new trail access commission. Hikers are looking for new trails to build and maintain for themselves, bikers are looking for new trails to build and maintain for themselves and this bill allows Equestrians to use every ones, just about.
I love multi-use trails...but not every trail needs to be multi-use. When I hike, I don't want to have a mountain biker come flying around the corner and crash while trying to miss me, my dog or my kids. I don't want to always step around horse *beep*. And, when riding, I don't want to disturb hikers and don't want to scare horses.

[jonw9]

A new round coming through this week:

The original
bill said in Section 72115 (1) that pack and saddle animals shall be allowed
to access pack and saddle trailways on public land managed by the
department. The bill defined "pack and saddle trailways" as trails and
equine access locations that currently are or at any time previously were
used by pack and saddle animals. The bill also struck out existing law that
sets out criteria by which the DNR can restrict access. These changes were
completely unacceptable.

The new bill keeps the same definition of "pack and saddle trailways," but
doesn't refer back to that term anywhere else in the bill I can find. The
main change is on page 8 where they significantly rewrite Section 72115(1).
I won't reproduce it in the body of the email, but it basically says that
trails and trailways on public land shall be open to all recreational uses.
It limits this by saying that the access shall be "subject to the plan for a
statewide trail network that specifies the types of uses that are allowed on
each trail segment." The substitute bill also adds language that makes it
clear that the DNR can restrict access to certain user types on lands that
are paid for with hunting and fishing fees or federal wildlife grants if
they decide (after a biological assessment) that such uses violate federal
laws or grant requirements.

My first take on the new substitute bill is that the definition of "pack and
saddle trailways" is still much to broad, but it is strange that they struck
out references to that term in the operative sections of the bill. I am
puzzled by that.

I also think that, while this bill is indeed an improvement, it still
creates restrictions on the ability of the DNR to manage access to state
lands. On the other hand, it will put some serious teeth in the statewide
trail network plan that is (I think) still being worked on by the Michigan
Snowmobile and Trails Advisory Council. Under this bill, that plan will
basically be the bible for all trail decisions.

The way I read it, the new H-3 substitute for HB 4684 grants access to all
trails for all users unless otherwise restricted by either, 1. The Statewide
Trail Network plan; or 2. Federal policies.

[Critter7r]

Isn't

"grant[ing] access to all trails for all users unless otherwise restricted by either, 1. The Statewide
Trail Network plan; or 2. Federal policies."

pretty much how it is now?

And if all references to "pack and saddle trailways" have been removed from the body of the bill, isn't having the definition of the term irrelevant?

I'll be interested enough to try to find the reworded bill, but from that info, this sounds like a big turn in the right direction.

[OneMoreMile]

There is more info on this under the
HB 4684 - Immediate action needed!
thread.

[dennismurphy]

I won't even bother writing Agema

He already emailed me earlier in this process he was inclined to vote for it and with the risk of federal dollars removed it's a slam dunk for him since the bill is introduced by a fellow "gotta rein in govt' Republican.

I need to move to a less "safe" district ..

[awfulkanawful]

I won't even bother writing Agema

He already emailed me earlier in this process he was inclined to vote for it and with the risk of federal dollars removed it's a slam dunk for him since the bill is introduced by a fellow "gotta rein in govt' Republican.

I need to move to a less "safe" district ..

If Agema is so "against more government", then why not ask him why he's voting for the bill at all? doesn't that "create more government"? Ranting against big government while expanding it to try and satify one's raging, insatiable meglamania...the word doesn't exist to describe how pitifully insipid. HB4684 is a Trojan horse....it doesn't matter how the pos reads if and when it's passed. Once it's in place, it will used as a foothold to chip away at the rest of the trails in the state...huh, imagine what that will be like?

[dennismurphy]

I won't even bother writing Agema

He already emailed me earlier in this process he was inclined to vote for it and with the risk of federal dollars removed it's a slam dunk for him since the bill is introduced by a fellow "gotta rein in govt' Republican.

I need to move to a less "safe" district ..

If Agema is so "against more government", then why not ask him why he's voting for the bill at all? doesn't that "create more government"? Ranting against big government while expanding it to try and satify one's raging, insatiable meglamania...the word doesn't exist to describe how pitifully insipid. HB4684 is a Trojan horse....it doesn't matter how the pos reads if and when it's passed. Once it's in place, it will used as a foothold to chip away at the rest of the trails in the state...huh, imagine what that will be like?

You are preaching to the choir of course- but I will monitor this forum- if I hear the bill is moving to the floor I will initiate a face-to-face with him and come armed...er, with facts

[Geff]

It is not being moved through anytime so, which gives a great window of opportunity to let your legislators know how you feel about this and to make sure the amendments we wrote up are in place and approved.