This affects *all* the trails you ride

[utabintarbo]

Are the amendments enforceable now?

No, that's not how it works. Only bills can pass and be signed into law. The amendments are merely changes to the bill, which hasn't yet passed. </civics>

[irishpitbull]

Are the amendments enforceable now?

No, that's not how it works. Only bills can pass and be signed into law. The amendments are merely changes to the bill, which hasn't yet passed. </civics>

Thanks for the lesson sweet cheeks.

[OneMoreMile]

Di_bear wrote:Where did you find those results?

up on the web now: http://www.house.michigan.gov/SessionDocs/2011-2012/Minutes/natu111011.pdf

[OneMoreMile]

More info:

response from Greg McMaster, and my response to him.

From: district105@house.mi.gov
To: m*************
Subject: RE: I oppose HB 4684
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 19:43:13 +0000

Marc,

I included language in my original bill to purposefully force the DNR to engage with regards to their use of recreational use funds. This was done to get them to be more open to quantifiable requests by Michigan citizens for appropriate equestrian use of certain state properties. The final bill, now that the DNR and Fish and Wildlife have reached consensus, will NOT put Michigan at risk of diversion (loss of Federal $$).

Please go to my website and listen to my recording that I just posted. It is NOT intended to impact the entire state, just the Pigeon River State Forest. But due to the Michigan Constitution, I was unable to make it germane to a specific area.

http://www.gophouse.com/multimedia.asp?District=105
I hope this clears things up. MUCC is aware of our intent and is working with us to protect your interest as well.
Sincerely,
Greg MacMaster


__________
My response:
Greg -
First, I truly want to thank you for your service to the state as a representative. I'm sure that this can be, at times, a truly thankless position that everyone thinks they can do better.

I really appreciate your response. I was trying to get up there yesterday to sit in on the committee (I guess it turns out that it is good I didn't), because this issue is very important to me. This was, apparently, a fast moving issue. The MUCC sent out an alert opposing the bill in committee, which is what I responded to. I'm not sure how we could have found out that there was amendment language being proposed, and whether it was being supported by MUCC and MMBA.

I do know that 2 interest groups I am a member of - MUCC and MMBA - strongly opposed this bill, and that the leadership didn't communicate that a compromise amendment was being worked on. I'm not sure how they would have done so, but I am good friends with the Executive Director of MMBA, and I will take that up with her. As late as yesterday afternoon, the Advocacy Director John Gonway, was urging MMBA members to oppose the bill.

I don't know the impact the State Constitution has on the language of a bill like this, and I still can't say that I support the amended language. As written, the bill seemed over-broad and likely to seriously infringe on my enjoyment of state lands while enabling unlimited use by a very small group that is highly likely to cause impacts I can't tolerate. It still seems open to that interpretation.

I will continue to be in touch with MMBA and MUCC, and may continue to oppose this bill based on their analysis.

I do sincerely appreciate your service, but please understand that I need my Representatives to speak for me - so I may disagree with you and let you know.

Sincerely,
Marc Robinson

[Di_bear]

IMO, the key points that we need to use to educate this committee is that the equestrians that support this bill are the equestrians who have no desire to 1) build new trails, and 2) repair the damage they do to existing trail. We also need to point out that the DNR *is* willing to work with user groups who do their part. We need to illustrate that the mountain bikers BUILD *and* MAINTAIN many trails on state land, and that being forced to share these trails would do nothing more than negate our efforts to provide mountain biking access to our citizens and to tourists. The reason why we are so successful is because we respect the DNR's land management policies, do what they allow us to, and have proven that we not only build sustainable trails with minimal environmental impact, but that we are the ones who maintain those trails, so the State of Michigan and the DNR do not have to spend money doing so. It is important to point out that the equestrians behind this bill were invited to do the same, but have refused.

The equestrians who oppose this bill are just like us: they build and maintain equestrian trails and are looking forward to a respectful relationship with the DNR and other user groups. The PRC equestrians just want access to a piece of land that they were banned from because of their behavior towards other user groups, primarily the hunters.

It is also important to point out that Michigan, particularly the UP (<--this really is an important fact--trust me), is benefiting from tourism not because of the Pure Michigan campaign, but because of mountain bikers' hard work and IMBA's recognition of the superb trails in Michigan that make this a destination state for a user group that consists mostly of upper middle class citizens who spend a lot of money at local businesses when they visit our great state.

[dauber76]

I got the same reply from McMaster. His explanation is not what the bill says. It is over broad and it affects how all trails in the state are treated.

BTW - the committee meeting got moved to today - still time to call or email.

This is what I responded with...

Mountain Biking is a Pure Michigan generator and brings in millions of dollars in tax based revenue. You should be very concerned with protecting this as it is far more substantial then that of equestrian revenue.

Nice response!

[geardaddy37]

funny I sent my letter out to everybody on that committee and none of them returned an answer.

[Sortaslow]

Responses (2nd one more interesting):

"Thank you so much for emailing me regarding House bill 4684. I am honored to serve as your State Representative, and I truly appreciate hearing from you.

As you know, HB 4684 was introduced by Representative Greg MacMaster, and has been referred to the Natural Resources, Tourism, and Outdoor Recreation Committee. Please rest assured that I will pass your comments along to my colleagues that sit on this committee. I am confident that they will be able to come to a compromise that works for both equestrians and mountain bikers. I will also keep your thoughts in mind when it comes time for me to vote on this issue in the House.

Thank you so much again for your email. Please do not hesitate to contact me again if I may be of any further assistance to you.

Warmest Regards,

Marilyn Lane
State Representative
31st District
N-795 House Office Building
P.O. Box 30014
Lansing, MI 48909-7514"

AND

"Thank you for contacting my office and sharing your concerns about House Bill 4684.

This legislation has not yet been reported from the House Committee on Natural Resources, although it has been the subject of at least one public hearing. While I am not a member of the Committee, I was present at the hearing (an unrelated bill that I had sponsored was also discussed), so I had the opportunity to hear the arguments both for and against this bill. I am left with the belief that horseback riders should probably have more access to trails in our state, but that this specific legislation has some aspects that concern me. The first is that this bill would allow trail riding on any trail that was open to riding at any time in the past. This may be too expansive and may threaten the balance that has been created between the various users of Michigan's state lands, including mountain bikers. In addition, I have a legitimate concern that this legislation in its current form may threaten important federal funding. At the hearing, those supporting the bill claimed that federal funding would not be impacted, while those opposing the bill raised this concern. I don't think the Legislature can proceed with this bill until this question is answered definitively by the federal government, because I don't think any user of Michigan's state land wants to see the funding for these programs reduced.

Ultimately, I think all taxpayers should have reasonable access to their state lands. I just want to make sure that the legislation that accomplishes this, does so in a manner that doesn't unduly infringe upon other taxpayers enjoying these lands or threaten continued federal funding. I assure you that I will be keeping your comments of opposition in mind as the Legislature continues to work on this bill.

Sincerely,
Representative Ken Goike
33rd District"

[skieur]

I received this in my inbox 2 days ago.

"Thank you for informing me of your opinion on Representative Macmaster’s legislation- House Bill 4684. This bill should not continue through the legislative process because of implications with jurisdiction between the DNR and the Michigan Legislature. As this bill is currently written, the DNR would not have the ability to regulate and enforce the rules and regulations for specific trails that would allow equestrian usage. This would result in a large loss of federal grant money that goes to support these very trails. Additionally, it is unconstitutional for the Michigan Legislature to even address an issue of jurisdiction with the Michigan DNR as the MDNR is an affiliate of the executive branch of government.

To conclude, as this bill is currently written, there is a high chance this bill will not reach the House floor.

If you have any other questions, comments, or concerns, please feel free to contact this office.

Sincerely,
Peter Pettalia
State Representative
106th District of Michigan
517-373-0833"

[mtbfree]

I received this in my inbox 2 days ago.

"Thank you for informing me of your ...

To conclude, as this bill is currently written, there is a high chance this bill will not reach the House floor.

If you have any other questions, comments, or concerns, please feel free to contact this office.

Sincerely,
Peter Pettalia
State Representative
106th District of Michigan
517-373-0833"

That's encouraging. But, he is still a politician, so I'll take these statements with a HUGE grain of salt.

[OneMoreMile]

Update - Rep Slavens called me twice regarding this bill. It is far from "dead."

What happened is that the amendments were added to it, and it was returned to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to determine if the amendments would prevent Michigan from losing the tax revenue. They are expecting an answer soon.

Also, for the record, Michigan United Conservation Clubs (MUCC) did not endorse the bill and has not backed it. They were against it at the committee meeting, and remain against it - despite what Rep McMaster said in his email to me. One big reason it failed (and MUCC is taking credit) is that a bunch of hunters showed up at the meeting in orange clothing, and were all vocal in opposition, but respectful.

It was Rep. Slavens' opinion that the "compromise" language would enable this to get to the house floor in this session, provided that USFWS got back to them as quickly as they did before.

The important part is that she expressed a desire to meet with mountain bikers and outdoor enthusiasts to discuss the measure as well as other potential / pending legislation might affect us all. Since she is on the Natural Resources, Tourism and Outdoor Recreation and is only in her second term, this is likely to be a good contact for us.

I reiterated the brief talking points Di_bear put out there - mountain bikers have worked too hard to give up trails to those who won't maintain them and don't respect other uses; that mountain bikers spend a lot of vacation/leisure dollars in Michigan, but could easily go elsewhere; that we're perfectly willing to reasonably divide trail use for safety and usability - but I would like some more concrete things to discuss with her regarding this bill and other needs.

My wife and I have hosted events for our elected representatives before, and could do the coordinating. If you're in the Plymouth / Canton / Northville / Belleville /Van Buren area, please let me know if you would be interested in meeting with Rep. Slavens.

I think this is too good of an opportunity to pass up.

[cramer]

The bill seems absurd based on the simple fact that we have an entire government organization set up to manage our public lands and this department already has a process for deciding which lands are suitable for different uses. It may not be perfect, but the idea of one group attempting to gain access to EVERYTHING (to the detriment of other user groups) via legislation is insane. What kind of precedent would this set? Should skate boarders write a law that says all public parking areas are now legal for skateboarding? How about the hunters write a new law that says any public city park is now open to hunting year round? How about the snowmobile riders make a law that says all paved paths are now legal for them to ride? Maybe the quads / dunebuggy guys want a law that says all public beaches are now open to riding? It's hard to believe that anyone would really support this or think it's a good idea so it's difficult to take it seriously.

[J.knight]

The bill seems absurd based on the simple fact that we have an entire government organization set up to manage our public lands and this department already has a process for deciding which lands are suitable for different uses. It may not be perfect, but the idea of one group attempting to gain access to EVERYTHING (to the detriment of other user groups) via legislation is insane. What kind of precedent would this set? Should skate boarders write a law that says all public parking areas are now legal for skateboarding? How about the hunters write a new law that says any public city park is now open to hunting year round? How about the snowmobile riders make a law that says all paved paths are now legal for them to ride? Maybe the quads / dunebuggy guys want a law that says all public beaches are now open to riding? It's hard to believe that anyone would really support this or think it's a good idea so it's difficult to take it seriously.

I was thinking along these same lines. What if the dirt bike community got legislation passed that said they could ride on any trail they ever had access to? I can remember the days when if you had an ORV sticker you could ride just about any public land you wanted too, short of the capital lawn. As it stands now, dirt bike riders in SE MI have to travel to Gladwin to ride the closest legal trail system.

The Equestrians may be setting themselves up by setting a precident for which they didn't expect the consequences. It would be worth having to build new trails if we could get horses and 450 cc four stroke motorcycles on the same trails. I would quit riding and just get a lawn chair to sit and watch that play out.

[mtbfree]

It would be worth having to build new trails if we could get horses and 450 cc four stroke motorcycles on the same trails. I would quit riding and just get a lawn chair to sit and watch that play out.

That would be great. And the horse riders think it's hard to control a horse around mountain bikes

[Scotty]

why does everybody think that pointing out the obsurdity of the Equestrian stance is the answer?

that's been done over and over and it hasn't stopped the horse lords from pursuing their agenda. they have gotten more and more agressive over the past decade. and with the least rational legislature in modern history, they probably have the most receptive audience that they've ever had in Lansing.

how do you think Lansing works??? this is a legislature that protects a billionaire's monopoly over the biggest international border crossing we have with Canada. This is a legislature that cut a billion dollars from schools and gave it to businesses in tax breaks. half of them are people who think the Earth is only 5000 years old.

Is IMBA lobbying for state legislation that would open ALL public land to bikes?

if not, what are we paying dues for?