Equestrian "Right to Ride" Bills

Official news and announcements about MMBA happenings

Equestrian "Right to Ride" Bills

Postby Di_bear » March 26th, 2010, 11:42 am

A report given by John Gonway, MMBA Advocacy Director:

EQUESTRIAN RIGHT TO RIDE BILLS

After a great deal of negotiations by the Backcountry Horsemen of America, The Michigan United Conversation Clubs, Michigan Mountain Biking Association (MMBA) and the Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Environment (the “Department”), the Equestrian Right to Ride Bills (House Bill 4610 sponsored by Tim Moore and Senate Bill 578 sponsored by Cameron Brown, the “Equestrian Bills”) are booked for passage and delivery to the Governor’s desk. As you know, the Michigan Mountain Biking Association wrote an official letter of opposition to the original versions of the Equestrian Bills due to the broad and sweeping nature of the bills in their original form. Advocacy Director John Gonway and Executive Director Marne Smiley, along with other leaders of the MMBA, have been heavily involved in monitoring the bills, writing letters and providing testimony at legislative hearings. The end result: a number of substantial changes were made to the bills that made them more palatable for mountain bikers.

The mission of the Michigan Mountain Biking Association is to encourage equal and fair access to state land (whether they be state parks, state forests or other state lands) in order for the residents of the State of Michigan to enjoy the land that has been preserved for all. This position means that all non-motorized trail users (mountain bikers, hikers, trail runners, orienteers, equestrians, skiers, mushroom gatherers and other non-motorized users) should have access to non-motorized trails in a fair, equitable and sustainable manner in light of the science, sustainability, and volunteer contributions of such user groups. However, it is the position of the MMBA that sharing the same trail with the equestrians presents certain user conflict issues due to a horse’s instinct as an open range animal and the risk a horse poses to itself, its rider and a mountain biker upon encountering a mountain biker on a trail. In addition, trail degradation caused by horse hoof and horseshoe, along with the inevitable presence of horse manure, provide a user experience to other non-motorized users that is less than ideal in the best circumstances and acutely challenging in the worst circumstances.

The original drafts of the Equestrian Bills did not account for these differences in user groups and attempted to reopen all trails to equestrians that were open to them as of May 7, 2008. This date was later modified to be January 1, 1999. The MMBA’s response was to ask: What exactly does this mean? Would it take mountain bike trails that are closed to equestrians at this time and reopen them to equestrians? Would this happen even in places where the equestrians and cyclists resolved to have separate trail systems, such as Pontiac Lake Recreation Area? How would it impact Fort Custer Recreation Area where the equestrians had abandoned their existing horse trails and are now using multi-user trails that have been built by MMBA members?

It was difficult for anyone to understand the impact of the original drafts of the Equestrian Bills.

Ultimately these original bills were revised substantially. While the MMBA still does not support these bills, it is important to know that they represent the fight of a user group to advocate its interests in a manner that is reactionary to its loss of access rights to Pigeon River Country State Forest. The MMBA is empathetic to the equestrian user groups who are no longer permitted to ride these established trails. We can certainly understand how they feel having lost trails of our own from time to time. It is our opinion that the intention of this initiative is not to make a grab for all trails in the state. Instead, it is an attempt at establishing a framework in which the equestrian community has defenses against trail closures.

However, it also establishes a special interest user group with rights above and beyond those of other non-motorized user groups. A greater calling for all non-motorized users to aspire to is the creation of a statewide council of non-motorized user groups necessarily that would give each user group a seat at the table to mediate what should be minor differences amongst these user groups. A baby step was made toward this end by the creation of the Snowmobile and Trails Advisory Council which was created under an executive order by Governor Granholm—a council upon which the MMBA Director of Advocacy John Gonway has a seat. Let this be the first step of many in the creation of a trail council not only for all user groups, but also one in which non-motorized users have a true impact on the responsible expansion of access for all users. (It should also be noted that the Equestrian Bills would codify into law the Snowmobile and Trails Advisory Council as described below.)

The following is a short summary of the important points of the Equestrian Bills as they currently stand:
  • First, any restrictions on pack and saddle animals (“Equestrians”) that were in effect as of the date the bill passes into law shall remain in effect until reviewed pursuant to the review process under the bills.
  • Pack and saddle animals will have access to all State Forest lands unless they are otherwise already restricted by the Department;
  • Pack and saddle animals shall be prohibited from accessing State Parks and State Game Areas unless it is expressly allowed by the Department;
  • Any further restrictions of access by pack and saddle animals may only be made if conditions are not suitable for pack and saddle animals because of public safety concerns, necessary maintenance, or for reasons related to the mission of the Department, which reasons shall be supported, to the greatest extent practicable, by a written science-based rationale made available to the public. Prior to determining that there are maintenance concerns that lead to further restrictions of pack and saddle animals, the Natural Resources Commission shall hold a public hearing, at which the Department must provide a specific rationale for its restriction, and there is a sixty day waiting period prior to such restriction (provided that the Department can close any trail immediately if there is an imminent threat to public health, safety, welfare, or to the natural resources or environment for a limited thirty day period). In addition, a written statement of the restriction shall be posted at the trailhead and on the Department’s website;
  • The bills set forth that the Department shall review the existing restrictions on access by pack and saddle animals to the Pigeon River Country State Forest by June 15, 2010, to the Lapeer State Game Area and the Gladwin Field Trial Area by January 1, 2011, and to the Lost Nation State Game Area and Blueberry Ridge Pathway by January 1, 2012.

In addition, the Equestrian Bills also codify into law the Snowmobile and Trails Advisory Council within the Department, which council shall advise the Director of the Department on the creation, development, operation, and maintenance of motorized and non-motorized trails in the state, including, but not limited to, snowmobiles, biking, equestrian, hiking, off-road vehicles and skiing trails. The council shall consist of eleven members as follows:

  • Not fewer than five members shall be an owner of an ORV or a snowmobile;
  • Not fewer than three members shall be an owner of snowmobile;
  • Not fewer than one member shall possess experience as an instructor in snowmobile safety education and training program or an ORV safety education course;
  • Not fewer than one member shall be a resident of the Upper Peninsula; and
  • Not fewer than two members shall be members of the Equine Trailways Subcommittee created under the Equestrian Bills.

The Equestrian Bills also provide for the creation of a statewide trail network for pack and saddle animals and the creation of an Equine Trailways Subcommittee (consisting of six members) as a subcommittee of the Michigan Snowmobile and Trails Advisory Council. The Equine Trailways Subcommittee shall provide written recommendations for the establishment of the Statewide Pack and Saddle Animal Trail Network and shall provide its recommendations to the Snowmobile and Trails Advisory Council within one year of passage of the Equestrian Bills. Within one year after the Snowmobile and Trails Advisory Council receives such recommendations, this Committee shall then make a recommendation to the Department which in turn will have one year to review such recommendations.
Thus, any change to the status of equestrian restrictions may lead to a process taking as much as three years.

All activities of Equine Trailways Subcommittee shall be conducted at public meetings and be subject to the Freedom of Information Act.

In conclusion, the process is detailed and is time consuming to change the status of a trail; in addition, members of the Snowmobile and Trails Advisory Council, as well as the Department, will have a say in the matter before changing any equestrian access rights.
Di 2.0: Image
MCMBA Vice Chairperson

Moronacity | Michigan Mountain Biking
"He's like kryptonite to aluminum." - dirt
"There is a fine line between fearless and *beep* stupid." - Jerry68's wife
User avatar
Di_bear
 
Posts: 8376
Joined: September 4th, 2006, 11:09 am
Location: Mount Clemens

Re: Equestrian "Right to Ride" Bills

Postby wingzz » March 26th, 2010, 1:23 pm

you said John has a seat on the Snowmobile and Trails Advisory Council but in the wording for the members of the council I dont see any mention of Mountain bikers, does this mean that we can get booted off the council at any time??
I'm just trying to understand how all of this is going to play out

In addition, the Equestrian Bills also codify into law the Snowmobile and Trails Advisory Council within the Department, which council shall advise the Director of the Department on the creation, development, operation, and maintenance of motorized and non-motorized trails in the state, including, but not limited to, snowmobiles, biking, equestrian, hiking, off-road vehicles and skiing trails. The council shall consist of eleven members as follows:

* Not fewer than five members shall be an owner of an ORV or a snowmobile;
* Not fewer than three members shall be an owner of snowmobile;
* Not fewer than one member shall possess experience as an instructor in snowmobile safety education and training program or an ORV safety education course;
* Not fewer than one member shall be a resident of the Upper Peninsula; and
* Not fewer than two members shall be members of the Equine Trailways Subcommittee created under the Equestrian Bills.
There are only two ways to live your life
One is as if nothing is a miracle
The other is as if everything is

MMBA Membership Director
Stony Creek TC
User avatar
wingzz
 
Posts: 7357
Joined: July 1st, 2002, 1:24 pm
Location: "The reward is looking back at obstacles , that are now behind you, and feeling like anything's

Re: Equestrian "Right to Ride" Bills

Postby Scotty » March 26th, 2010, 3:08 pm

What on earth does all this mean?

Can we get an explanation in plain english?
User avatar
Scotty
 
Posts: 5861
Joined: February 7th, 2003, 8:37 am

Re: Equestrian "Right to Ride" Bills

Postby edhug » March 26th, 2010, 3:08 pm

wingzz wrote:you said John has a seat on the Snowmobile and Trails Advisory Council but in the wording for the members of the council I dont see any mention of Mountain bikers, does this mean that we can get booted off the council at any time??
I'm just trying to understand how all of this is going to play out

According to HB 4610, the appointments are for 4-year terms:
THE ADVISORY COUNCIL SHALL CONSIST OF 11 MEMBERS APPOINTED
14 BY THE GOVERNOR. MEMBERS OF THE ADVISORY COUNCIL SHALL BE APPOINTED
15 FOR A TERM OF 4 YEARS. A VACANCY ON THE ADVISORY COUNCIL OCCURRING
16 OTHER THAN BY EXPIRATION OF A TERM SHALL BE FILLED BY THE GOVERNOR
17 IN THE SAME MANNER AS THE ORIGINAL APPOINTMENT FOR THE BALANCE OF
18 THE UNEXPIRED TERM. A VACANCY SHALL NOT AFFECT THE POWER OF THE
19 REMAINING MEMBERS TO EXERCISE THE DUTIES OF THE ADVISORY COUNCIL.
User avatar
edhug
 
Posts: 565
Joined: June 20th, 2002, 1:03 pm

Re: Equestrian "Right to Ride" Bills

Postby darkstar » March 30th, 2010, 11:57 am

I need to be enlightened … Do we mountain bikers have a right to ride bill? and a full out MTB sub advisory committee? What rights do we have as mountain bikers and protection against losing our trails ? I am surprised at myself for not knowing these things but this bill passage is making me think what we have to protect our rights and our trails for ourselves and future generations. All I can say is to me it seems the only true stewardship happens when the mountain bikers (MMBA) have been involved. At least from what I’ve seen personally the boy scouts and MMBA are pretty much the only ones I have EVER seen working on the trails.
If you know of any links off-hand to answer some of my questions please point me up some links so I can educate myself (of course now that I’m down this path ill try to find some myself.. )

It would also be nice to know any/all elected officials had hands in this thing so we can either bribe them or vote them out.

I’m all for multiple trail usage to an extent. State land is everyone’s land but the bill seemed so sweeping thank goodness folks got involved and revisons made.

Maybe this bill was passed to help stimulate the economy we now have 3 years and a need for a tire manufacture to create horse crap shedding tiers to fling the crap to the left and right but never forward, backwards or on you. (Hey! it should be called “the politician”.)
User avatar
darkstar
 
Posts: 30
Joined: May 31st, 2008, 1:25 am

Re: Equestrian "Right to Ride" Bills

Postby Di_bear » March 30th, 2010, 2:54 pm

darkstar wrote:I need to be enlightened … Do we mountain bikers have a right to ride bill? and a full out MTB sub advisory committee? What rights do we have as mountain bikers and protection against losing our trails ? I am surprised at myself for not knowing these things but this bill passage is making me think what we have to protect our rights and our trails for ourselves and future generations. All I can say is to me it seems the only true stewardship happens when the mountain bikers (MMBA) have been involved. At least from what I’ve seen personally the boy scouts and MMBA are pretty much the only ones I have EVER seen working on the trails.
If you know of any links off-hand to answer some of my questions please point me up some links so I can educate myself (of course now that I’m down this path ill try to find some myself.. )

It would also be nice to know any/all elected officials had hands in this thing so we can either bribe them or vote them out.

I’m all for multiple trail usage to an extent. State land is everyone’s land but the bill seemed so sweeping thank goodness folks got involved and revisons made.

Maybe this bill was passed to help stimulate the economy we now have 3 years and a need for a tire manufacture to create horse crap shedding tiers to fling the crap to the left and right but never forward, backwards or on you. (Hey! it should be called “the politician”.)


Darkstar - check the Advocacy Forum. You'll need to skim over a lot of the comments to find the posts (the long ones) that contain quotes and links to the legislation as well as other information.
Di 2.0: Image
MCMBA Vice Chairperson

Moronacity | Michigan Mountain Biking
"He's like kryptonite to aluminum." - dirt
"There is a fine line between fearless and *beep* stupid." - Jerry68's wife
User avatar
Di_bear
 
Posts: 8376
Joined: September 4th, 2006, 11:09 am
Location: Mount Clemens

Re: Equestrian "Right to Ride" Bills

Postby Scotty » March 30th, 2010, 2:56 pm

darkstar wrote:I need to be enlightened … Do we mountain bikers have a right to ride bill?


SOME people have wanted that for years. But there's been a long history of not rocking the boat in the cycling community. It's the notion that if we're nice enough to equestrians and hikers they'll ask us to share with them.

Guess what, people on horses don't care. And hikers will never share.
User avatar
Scotty
 
Posts: 5861
Joined: February 7th, 2003, 8:37 am

Re: Equestrian "Right to Ride" Bills

Postby falcon » March 31st, 2010, 7:23 am

Di_bear wrote:
darkstar wrote:I need to be enlightened … Do we mountain bikers have a right to ride bill? and a full out MTB sub advisory committee? What rights do we have as mountain bikers and protection against losing our trails ? I am surprised at myself for not knowing these things but this bill passage is making me think what we have to protect our rights and our trails for ourselves and future generations. All I can say is to me it seems the only true stewardship happens when the mountain bikers (MMBA) have been involved. At least from what I’ve seen personally the boy scouts and MMBA are pretty much the only ones I have EVER seen working on the trails.
If you know of any links off-hand to answer some of my questions please point me up some links so I can educate myself (of course now that I’m down this path ill try to find some myself.. )

It would also be nice to know any/all elected officials had hands in this thing so we can either bribe them or vote them out.

I’m all for multiple trail usage to an extent. State land is everyone’s land but the bill seemed so sweeping thank goodness folks got involved and revisons made.

Maybe this bill was passed to help stimulate the economy we now have 3 years and a need for a tire manufacture to create horse crap shedding tiers to fling the crap to the left and right but never forward, backwards or on you. (Hey! it should be called “the politician”.)


Darkstar - check the Advocacy Forum. You'll need to skim over a lot of the comments to find the posts (the long ones) that contain quotes and links to the legislation as well as other information.


Di,

The questions have, and are being been asked. It is the responsibility of the MMBA Board to educate and inform it's members. Telling a member to SKIM over threads filled with wrong/mis-information, emotions and conjecture is not the answer. I have been reading and trying to follow those threads and they leave me scratching my head. I would suggest that as soon as this bill is signed by the Governor, that the Board issue a written response to the members explaining exactly how this bill will effect Mountain bikers and our trails.

I view this Bill as the proverbial camel's nose under the tent and see a lot more conflict in our (Mountain Bikers) future. Especially at Fort Custer!
falcon
 
Posts: 46
Joined: February 23rd, 2008, 7:32 pm
Location: Richland

Re: Equestrian "Right to Ride" Bills

Postby Scotty » March 31st, 2010, 8:07 am

falcon wrote:
Di,

The questions have, and are being been asked. It is the responsibility of the MMBA Board to educate and inform it's members. Telling a member to SKIM over threads filled with wrong/mis-information, emotions and conjecture is not the answer. I have been reading and trying to follow those threads and they leave me scratching my head. I would suggest that as soon as this bill is signed by the Governor, that the Board issue a written response to the members explaining exactly how this bill will effect Mountain bikers and our trails.

I view this Bill as the proverbial camel's nose under the tent and see a lot more conflict in our (Mountain Bikers) future. Especially at Fort Custer!


I agree. "Official" statements are all fine and good. But the membership needs an easy to understand explanation that's in plain English.
User avatar
Scotty
 
Posts: 5861
Joined: February 7th, 2003, 8:37 am

Re: Equestrian "Right to Ride" Bills

Postby EPICEARTH » March 31st, 2010, 8:25 am

Guess what, people on horses don't care. And hikers will never share.


Wrong broad Brush statement! I am an avid mountain biker racing expert and a member of the Mountain Bike Patrol, I also own horses and ride them on trails. No responsible Equestrian would ride their horse on a known mountain bike trail. It is just not safe. Just like I don't mountain bike in the state parks during small game season. Fort Custer is the last place I would ever bring a horse. I admit there are always a few bad (ROAD) apples in any group of enthusists just like in Mountain Biking. The good news here is that the responsible people in these organizations are having open dialogue and mature conversations about how to co-exist and promote outdoor activities.
User avatar
EPICEARTH
 
Posts: 139
Joined: May 24th, 2004, 6:34 pm

Re: Equestrian "Right to Ride" Bills

Postby falcon » March 31st, 2010, 9:05 am

EPICEARTH wrote:
Guess what, people on horses don't care. And hikers will never share.


Wrong broad Brush statement! I am an avid mountain biker racing expert and a member of the Mountain Bike Patrol, I also own horses and ride them on trails. No responsible Equestrian would ride their horse on a known mountain bike trail. It is just not safe. Just like I don't mountain bike in the state parks during small game season. Fort Custer is the last place I would ever bring a horse. I admit there are always a few bad (ROAD) apples in any group of enthusists just like in Mountain Biking. The good news here is that the responsible people in these organizations are having open dialogue and mature conversations about how to co-exist and promote outdoor activities.


Obviously you don't ride Fort Custer much, or have had conversations with the Fort Custer horse people!
falcon
 
Posts: 46
Joined: February 23rd, 2008, 7:32 pm
Location: Richland

Re: Equestrian "Right to Ride" Bills

Postby SteveF » March 31st, 2010, 9:56 am

falcon wrote:
EPICEARTH wrote:
Guess what, people on horses don't care. And hikers will never share.


Wrong broad Brush statement! I am an avid mountain biker racing expert and a member of the Mountain Bike Patrol, I also own horses and ride them on trails. No responsible Equestrian would ride their horse on a known mountain bike trail. It is just not safe. Just like I don't mountain bike in the state parks during small game season. Fort Custer is the last place I would ever bring a horse. I admit there are always a few bad (ROAD) apples in any group of enthusists just like in Mountain Biking. The good news here is that the responsible people in these organizations are having open dialogue and mature conversations about how to co-exist and promote outdoor activities.


Obviously you don't ride Fort Custer much, or have had conversations with the Fort Custer horse people!


Yeah--there must be a whole lot of irresponsible equestrians goin' to Custer. I saw almost 20 the last time I was there, most on the green loop.
User avatar
SteveF
 
Posts: 2863
Joined: June 21st, 2002, 10:56 am

Re: Equestrian "Right to Ride" Bills

Postby Di_bear » March 31st, 2010, 10:28 am

falcon wrote:Di,

The questions have, and are being been asked. It is the responsibility of the MMBA Board to educate and inform it's members. Telling a member to SKIM over threads filled with wrong/mis-information, emotions and conjecture is not the answer. I have been reading and trying to follow those threads and they leave me scratching my head. I would suggest that as soon as this bill is signed by the Governor, that the Board issue a written response to the members explaining exactly how this bill will effect Mountain bikers and our trails.


That's what this report IS!

Falcon, as a VOLUNTEER, sometimes all I can do is point you in the right direction. I have spent boatloads of time trying to inform you guys, and it's like many of you don't read it. As VOLUNTEERS, I and the other board members need to tend to personal business, as well. It would be nice if you would make more of an effort to read what we have already put out, which is why I told that person where to find the information.

As a VOLUNTEER and a fellow MEMBER, I see my time as being just as precious as yours. If I have to research it on the forum to find the information, then you aren't above researching it, either. Instead of giving me crap [about my 10-hour per week contribution to the MMBA and to you], why don't you spend your time answering those questions, instead.

John's report is thorough and well-written. The only additional information we can currently give you on the effects of the bills is either currently unknown or speculation, and the board cannot issue a statement on speculation. My opinion is the situation seems better than what we originally thought.

Thank you, and I look forward to YOU running for state board, next year. Also, this post is clearly a personal rant by Di and is most certainly *not* a representation of the MMBA. As a fellow, paying member of the MMBA and volunteer, I have just as much of a right to rant as you do.
Di 2.0: Image
MCMBA Vice Chairperson

Moronacity | Michigan Mountain Biking
"He's like kryptonite to aluminum." - dirt
"There is a fine line between fearless and *beep* stupid." - Jerry68's wife
User avatar
Di_bear
 
Posts: 8376
Joined: September 4th, 2006, 11:09 am
Location: Mount Clemens

Re: Equestrian "Right to Ride" Bills

Postby wingzz » March 31st, 2010, 11:02 am

Di_bear wrote:
falcon wrote:Di,

The questions have, and are being been asked. It is the responsibility of the MMBA Board to educate and inform it's members. Telling a member to SKIM over threads filled with wrong/mis-information, emotions and conjecture is not the answer. I have been reading and trying to follow those threads and they leave me scratching my head. I would suggest that as soon as this bill is signed by the Governor, that the Board issue a written response to the members explaining exactly how this bill will effect Mountain bikers and our trails.


That's what this report IS!

Falcon, as a VOLUNTEER, sometimes all I can do is point you in the right direction. I have spent boatloads of time trying to inform you guys, and it's like many of you don't read it. As VOLUNTEERS, I and the other board members need to tend to personal business, as well. It would be nice if you would make more of an effort to read what we have already put out, which is why I told that person where to find the information.

As a VOLUNTEER and a fellow MEMBER, I see my time as being just as precious as yours. If I have to research it on the forum to find the information, then you aren't above researching it, either. Instead of giving me crap [about my 10-hour per week contribution to the MMBA and to you], why don't you spend your time answering those questions, instead.

John's report is thorough and well-written. The only additional information we can currently give you on the effects of the bills is either currently unknown or speculation, and the board cannot issue a statement on speculation. My opinion is the situation seems better than what we originally thought.

Thank you, and I look forward to YOU running for state board, next year. Also, this post is clearly a personal rant by Di and is most certainly *not* a representation of the MMBA. As a fellow, paying member of the MMBA and volunteer, I have just as much of a right to rant as you do.



Here Here, from one MMBA volunteer to another Very well said!!
There are only two ways to live your life
One is as if nothing is a miracle
The other is as if everything is

MMBA Membership Director
Stony Creek TC
User avatar
wingzz
 
Posts: 7357
Joined: July 1st, 2002, 1:24 pm
Location: "The reward is looking back at obstacles , that are now behind you, and feeling like anything's

Re: Equestrian "Right to Ride" Bills

Postby Geff » March 31st, 2010, 11:15 am

Rant on Di!
Geff
 
Posts: 1264
Joined: November 13th, 2003, 3:15 pm
Location: Ann Arbor

Next

Return to MMBA News

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests