HB 4684 - Immediate action needed!

[Nelg]

We need your help, Ft. Custer, Pontiac Lake and potentially every state forest pathway is vulnerable under this new bill.

---

On March 20, the House Natural Resources Committee voted in favor of House Bill 4684. As originally introduced, this bill would have removed the ability of the DNR to properly manage trail systems on state lands and jeopardized millions of dollars in federal funds.

Fortunately, the bill has been significantly amended since then, and a potential loss of federal funds is much less likely. However, there are still significant problems with the bill, and therefore the MMBA remains in opposition.

Specifically, the bill is a problem in its current form for two reasons. 1) It contains a definition that elevates equestrians above all other user groups. This definition is as follows: "Pack and saddle trailways" means TRAILS and equine access locations that CURRENTLY ARE OR AT ANY TIME PREVIOUSLY WERE used by pack and saddle animals. 2) The bill would prevent the DNR Director from being the final decision-maker on trail usage. Instead, it shifts this responsibility to the Michigan Snowmobile and Trails Advisory Council – a body that is not designed for such a task.

We are working on an amendment that would clarify that the DNR Director would continue to have the authority to restrict and segregate trail access by user group, provided that it was done in a manner which was fair and equitable for all user groups. Should this amendment be adopted, the MMBA would drop its opposition to the legislation.

Please call your State Representative and let them know that you are opposed to HB 4684 because it will make it more difficult for the DNR to resolve local disputes between various types of trail user groups. The bill as written has the potential to create chaos by giving all trail users equal access to nearly all trails. While this may sound fair in principle, the fact is that without the DNR’s ability to be a “traffic cop” on state lands, the result will be greater problems on Michigan’s trailways.

You can find out how to contact your State Representative by going to this link:

http://www.house.mi.gov/mhrpublic/

Your phone calls and emails will be critical for stopping this bill that can our trails hostage to one single user group.

Your fellow riders thank you for your support!

[OneMoreMile]

Don't forget faxes!

I also call my senator, and asked for his support in talking to the reps in his territory, too.

[OneMoreMile]

For what it is worth, here is the letter I wrote. Feel free to copy, paste, and fax / email
______________


Thank you very much for your support in opposing HB 4684. I really appreciate assistance in opposing this bill..

As a member of the Michigan Mountain Biking Association, and MUCC, I am still opposed to this bill. Some of my favorite mountain biking trails, including Maybury State park, Ft. Custer, Pontiac Lake and potentially every state forest pathway is vulnerable under this new bill.

MMBA is opposed to the bill, and although MUCC is neutral now, I have asked them to re-examine the bill in light of the problems its passage will cause for mountain bikers, hikers, and backpackers.

I admit that the loss of federal funds is much less likely, but, there are still significant problems with the bill, and therefore the MMBA remains in opposition.

Specifically, the bill is a problem in its current form for two reasons.
1) It contains a definition that elevates equestrians above all other user groups. This definition is as follows: "Pack and saddle trailways" means TRAILS and equine access locations that CURRENTLY ARE OR AT ANY TIME PREVIOUSLY WERE used by pack and saddle animals.

2) The bill would prevent the DNR Director from being the final decision-maker on trail usage. Instead, it shifts this responsibility to the Michigan Snowmobile and Trails Advisory Council – a body that is not designed for such a task.

MMBA is working on an amendment that would clarify that the DNR Director would continue to have the authority to restrict and segregate trail access by user group, provided that it was done in a manner which was fair and equitable for all user groups. Should this amendment be adopted, the MMBA would drop its opposition to the legislation.

Again, I really appreciate your support in opposing this bill.
Sincerely,

[Washington Rider]

Yesterday was a frustrating day in Lansing. Our lobbyist Todd Tennis and I went there to provide testimony only to find they had made last minute changes. It was clear they had also made up their minds prior to our testimony.

The last minute changes significantly watered down the legislation to a point that I’m not sure what impact it will have. There are still many unknowns with how the changes could be implemented. As we saw at Ft. Custer, these unknowns led to widespread equestrian damage to our existing trails and ultimate loss of trails. Therefore, we need to continue fighting this bill to the end. Another option would be to ensure language in the bill is suitable to our needs.

These last minute changes also added a level of confusion that made presenting effective testimony difficult. I believe that is why MUCC and MTGA both switched to a neutral position. MTGA has already moved back to opposing it and has pledged to help continue the fight.

My belief is that because this will not impact what has happened at Pigeon River, we will see this same attempt again and again. We had a hallway discussion (really more of an argument) with Rep. McMasters who accused us of not looking outside the envelop of mountain biking at the bigger issue. The bigger issue for him is the loss of equestrian based businesses in his district. Our conversation was polarized and brief but I think he did get the point about issue #1 (see above in first post) and I think he may have even indicated trying to change that.

We still have a chance to defeat this bill and let the Backcountry Horsemen know they need to give up the concept of legislating a fix to their problem. I do appreciate the efforts of everyone involved. The changes that were introduced at the last minute are a testament to these efforts. Keep up the good fight!

[jajones]

My prediction is that if this legislation passes, you are going to see equestrians start treading on whatever nonmotorized trails on State lands that they choose to ride on.

Don't be surprised if you start to see horses on trails at Island Lake or on the Poto. Compliants by bikers, hikers or whomever will then be lodged with the DNR. The DNR will then contact the equestrians and discuss with them their activity. The equestrians will point to the legislation, argue that they had access to the trail at some point in history, and the DNR will lack the er....intestinal fortitude...to take the issue any further.

For me this again proves the points that I've been making for a couple decades now.

1.) Nice guys finish last when it comes to recreational access and interests on public lands. (you may end up being loved for your disposition, but you will be a lovable loser)
2.) The squeakiest wheels get the grease. (the Backcountry Horsemen can tell you all about this)
3.) The DNR manages public lands largely based on 2 prioritized factors: Where is the Department's funding coming from (who owns them) and an Only-put-out-the-biggest-and-hottest-fires management strategy.
4.) Mountain bikers need to be more proactive when it comes to advocacy and access, not reactive. (This House Bill could have easily read the same way, only with "cyclists" as the subject noun instead of "equestrians". However, we were too short-sighted to initiate such legislation.)

[SteveF]

Unfortunately, I think it's a lot easier for a group that feels they lack access to get it, than it is for a group to make a case for denying access to another. Not saying we shouldn't fight or that we're doomed to fail, but it's gonna be an uphill battle, and it's not going to end soon. They have nothing to lose by trying again and again 'til they wear down the powers that be or us or both, and everything to gain.

I wonder if planet bike will introduce a set of horse crap fenders soon? I wonder if a fat bike floats well enough to ride nicely over post holes and pulverized, sandy trail tread?

[Scotty]

Every time this comes up it's the same fire drill. If this bill doesn't pass this time around it'll eventually get through. the horse lobby doesn't practice Kumbaya politics, like hug-it-out cyclists do. they have a long term strategy to push this through, while the only group(s) in opposition have a strategy of posting on bulletin boards and begging IMBA members to write letters to legislatures who for the most part don't give a dam about cycling. What is IMBA's strategy?

oh wait... there isn't one.

Lansing is now run by a group of people who for the most part are ideologically opposed to the DNR. Is it any wonder that limiting the power of the DNR like this would happen now?

cyclists should be taking advantage of the political climate and pushing for the same access to public land that equestrians are going to get.

[Critter7r]

We all already have access to pretty much the same land. Why can't we keep separated trail networks?

[mel0505tam]

curious to know... where is fellow mtnbkr Rep. Harvey Santana in all this?

[bax]

I'm curious, what role if any does the IMBA play in helping us ?

[balexander87]

I'm still sort of confused about this whole thing... How can any rational, impartial (keyword: impartial...) adult, when presented with ALL the facts concerning this issue, even give this type of legislation a second thought? I get that horse people like to ride their horses and would like to be able to continue to do so, and, in my opinion, they should absolutely have the right to do so, SO LONG AS THEY DON'T SPIT ON THAT RIGHT BY ABUSING THE LAND. You want the same degree of trail access as other user groups? PUT IN THE SAME TIME AND EFFORT AS THOSE USER GROUPS!! Are they really complaining that others are getting "preferential treatment" and in the same breath asking for and even greater degree of preferential treatment for themselves?? I feel like this is a story out of a book I didn't like because while it tries to maintain a semblance of realism, the backwardness of it prevents it from being even remotely believable...

Maybe if certain individuals would commit as much time and effort into maintaining existing trail networks as they do to trying to force this kind of crap legislation through, they'd actually develop a good relationship with land managers and maybe even get the opportunity to expand their trails. This kind of self-entitlement and they way gov'ts encourage and cater to it is just sickening...

Sorry. I know that this rant has done nothing for anyone, except allow me to vent a little bit. Has there been any efforts to try to work with private land managers to develop trail systems? Seems like if this is something that the Horsemen are going to continue to hammer on until it goes through, maybe we could just pool together and start buying up land... I realize that would mean losing all the work we've put in so far, but 20 years from now, mountain bikers and other RESPONSIBLE users will have tons of nice, well maintained trails that we CAN keep the horses off of, and all the trails on public land will be impassable to everyone except those on horseback. I know this is just a pipe dream and not at all realistic, but I like it...

Also, I took a look at the BCHA site today. Funny stuff. Apparently, Leave No Trace and assisting "the various government and private agencies in their maintenance and management of [public land]" are part of their purpose...

[Nelg]

UPDATE:

Potential amendments have been submitted for review, we'll do our best to keep everyone posted as news develops.

Thanks!

[Washington Rider]

curious to know... where is fellow mtnbkr Rep. Harvey Santana in all this?

We (MMBA) did consult with IMBA but they have no experience fighting legislation like this. Their experience has been (it's been a while but my recollection is) in working with groups directly to reach common ground. As you can probably tell by now, the Backcountry Horseman don't give a crap about anyone but themselves so there is no common ground.

[Washington Rider]

UPDATE

We have heard the legislation will not move forward until they hear back from the federal dept. of Fish & Game that the latest round ammendments will be acceptable. F & G had made it clear in their last two rejection letters that the DNR needs to be able to manage land that was purchased/acquired with funds from the F & G. No estimate of how long this will take but it gives us time to contact our legislators.

[Di_bear]

curious to know... where is fellow mtnbkr Rep. Harvey Santana in all this?

We (MMBA) did consult with IMBA but they have no experience fighting legislation like this. Their experience has been (it's been a while but my recollection is) in working with groups directly to reach common ground. As you can probably tell by now, the Backcountry Horseman don't give a crap about anyone but themselves so there is no common ground.

Exactly. This isn't about what's right and wrong and rational thinking. It's a *beep* match between the BCH and everyone else (even the Michigan Horse Council doesn't support this bill) and Greg MacMaster and the DNR. Seems to me that someone needs to start a campaign against MacMaster's reelection. He's wasting our legislature's time (and taxpayer money) with this *beep* when there is already a process in place for proactive user groups willing to do their part.