Equestrian Right to Ride Bills

[OneMoreMile]

Glad to hear this got off the fast track!

Does anyone have a copy of the actual language we want? Rep Slavin was very receptive to talking to us - in fact, she asked to be invited to a forum of mountain bikers or to attend a trail maintenance event. If I talk to her, I would like to know how we actually want the language to read.

[Geff]

Glad to hear this got off the fast track!

Does anyone have a copy of the actual language we want? Rep Slavin was very receptive to talking to us - in fact, she asked to be invited to a forum of mountain bikers or to attend a trail maintenance event. If I talk to her, I would like to know how we actually want the language to read.

================================================
These amendments are in rough form and would need to be reworked, but hopefully it will give you an idea of what we are looking for.


Michigan Mountain Biking Association
Proposed Amendments to HB 4684 (H-5)

The first amendment deals with the definition of “pack and saddle trailways.” Although we appreciate the fact that the H-5 version of the bill limited this somewhat, we are still concerned that it is broad enough to cause confusion in the future. Therefore, we request that the changes to the current definition be stricken.

Section 72101 (h): delete new language and retain current law for the definition of “Pack and saddle trailways”

The second amendment would clarify that they DNR director maintained the authority to segregate trails by user group. We feel that this is necessary in order to ensure there is a “traffic cop” who can make binding decisions about trail usage. We worded the amendment to minimize the possibility of discrimination against any type of trail user group.

Section 72115 (1)(b), rewrite as the following:

(B) IF THE DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT DETERMINES THAT A RESTRICTION OF 1 OR MORE RECREATIONAL USES ON A PARTICULAR TRAIL SEGMENT IS NECESSARY TO RESOLVE CONFLICTS BETWEEN USER GROUPS THAT AFFECT SAFETY, HEALTH, AND THE OVERALL ENJOYMENT OF DNR MANAGED LANDS, PROVIDED THAT ANY TRAIL USERS RESTRICTED FROM A PARTICULAR TRAIL SEGMENT HAVE REASONABLY EQUITABLE ACCESS TO OTHER TRAIL SEGMENTS WITHIN THE SAME LOCALITY. IF AN ORDER IS ISSUED UNDER THIS SUBDIVISION, THE DEPARTMENT SHALL POST A NOTICE AT THE TRAILHEAD DESCRIBING THE RESTRICTIONS.

[Di_bear]

Thanks, Geff.

Here is the most recent version of the bill: https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B7y3pXvOBDQfeU9OMUFZTkhqWFU

[Geff]

Thanks, Geff.

Here is the most recent version of the bill: https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B7y3pXvOBDQfeU9OMUFZTkhqWFU

No worries Di. I was going to post that website too, but wasn't really sure if it would fly. Thank you for making that part happen and posting it up.

[jrshome]

I thought this had moved out of committee? Is the bill still in committee or up to the full house. I have been exchanging some messages with my representative and she told me it was still in committee

[Di_bear]

I thought this had moved out of committee? Is the bill still in committee or up to the full house. I have been exchanging some messages with my representative and she told me it was still in committee

There are *many* stages involving a few committee votes for passing legislation. It's burdensome and slow, but at the same time, it's a blessing. I know I posted the legislative web page for the bill, and that should give you an idea of where it is, but they don't update it immediately.

[dennismurphy]

Date Journal Action
5/26/2011 HJ 49 Pg. 1338 introduced by Representative Greg MacMaster
5/26/2011 HJ 49 Pg. 1338 read a first time
5/26/2011 HJ 49 Pg. 1338 referred to Committee on Natural Resources, Tourism, and Outdoor Recreation
5/31/2011 HJ 50 Pg. 1344 printed bill filed 05/27/2011
3/20/2012 HJ 29 Pg. 433 reported with recommendation with substitute H-5
3/20/2012 HJ 29 Pg. 433 referred to second reading





http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(oso5xd ... n4i4dg4s55))/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=2011-HB-4684

[irishpitbull]

Man this sucks.

[c0nsumer]

Man this sucks.

Eh? It's been stuck in committee since 20-Mar.

[irishpitbull]

Man this sucks.

Eh? It's been stuck in committee since 20-Mar.

Just wish it would die. After riding Proud Lake, I'm even more anti-horse.

[c0nsumer]

Man this sucks.

Eh? It's been stuck in committee since 20-Mar.

Just wish it would die. After riding Proud Lake, I'm even more anti-horse.

I'm not saying it's the case for this bill, but this is how they die. They go to committee and never go anywhere else.

[dennismurphy]

It remains a threat until the end of the legislative session because if any changes occur to it via negotiations, the committee can kick it to the floor for a vote
At least that is my understanding

[Di_bear]

It remains a threat until the end of the legislative session because if any changes occur to it via negotiations, the committee can kick it to the floor for a vote
At least that is my understanding

Yes, but the nice thing is that we currently have the legislative session on our side, so it's very likely that this bill could die.

[ColorVoyeur]

After riding Proud Lake, I'm even more anti-horse.

anti-horse...

anti-horse...

ANTI-HORSE?

[dennismurphy]

one MAY be "anti-horse" but a better clarification is one could say you are "anti-horse on bike trails due to damage from the hooves and the manure on the trail"

I personally like horses and have ridden them a couple of times- in appropriate locations- which biking/hiking trails are not