Moronacity Cycling Journal » Advocacy, Featured
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Comments on “Right to Ride” Legislation
By Diane Ursu
“Right to Ride” legislation is a major threat to mountain biking and other multi-use trails throughout Michigan. Currently, there is much state land that is closed to equestrians, and one of those is much of the Pigeon River Country State Forest Area located northeast of Gaylord.
This piece of land became a rather large issue for other user groups when both equestrians and mountain bikers were banned from the state forest area due to complaints by hunters. In Josh Slagter’s April 18, 2008 Grand Rapids Press article, “DNR takes fair stance for Pigeon River,” DNR Resource Management Deputy Mindy Koch said, “Where there was work group consensus that bikers were not a problem, there was no consensus on any issue pertaining to horses.”
Slagter reported that problems with the equestrians “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.” Worse yet, while the mountain bikers were able to show that they weren’t just another group, that they were clearly stewards of the land by maintaining the trails, the equestrians wanted no part of it. They simply wanted their access back without offering any kind of a productive relationship with the DNR and other user groups.
On December 10, 2011, I wrote a letter to the most recent bill’s sponsor:
Mr. MacMaster,
I am very sorry that I was unable to attend last week’s Michigan Horse Council meeting as I looked forward to meeting you. As an avid trail user, I’ve had the pleasure of building, maintaining, and enjoying Michigan trails such as those in Copper Harbor, Grand Rapids, and now, the Greater Detroit Area. Building and maintaining trails is truly a labor of love––hand tools make for slow trail development.
My fellow volunteers and I raise money to purchase those tools and materials that are necessary for building not only a fun trail, but one that resists erosion and will be sustainable for many years to come. You see, our goal is to enjoy our public lands with minimal impact to the surrounding environment. We recognize that our public lands are a privilege, and we, as volunteers, are stewards of that land.
The benefit to the State of Michigan is that we now have mountain bike trails all across the state, trails that were built without cost to the State of Michigan. The reason we were allowed to build these trails is that we also took the time to cultivate a respectful relationship with the DNR and other land managers, and proved the value of our word by building quality trails that we continue to maintain. If a trail is in need of repair, we repair it; again, at no cost to the State of Michigan.
Unfortunately, the soil throughout most of Michigan is very sensitive. A horse hoof divot will stop the proper drainage of water and will eventually escalate into a larger puddle that mountain bikers and hikers will go around, thus widening the trail and usually turning into a horrible, muddy mess. This prevents us from achieving our goal of having minimal impact on the surrounding environment. We do have short sections of shared trail in Lower Michigan that serve as overwhelming proof of this incompatibility. As a former equestrian of 15 years, I have also witnessed this, firsthand.
The passage of HB 4684 and HB 5175 will not only cost the State of Michigan the benefits of hundreds of volunteers, but it will unfairly favor equestrians over other user groups; nullify last year’s legislation regarding the Michigan Snowmobile and Trails Advisory Council (MSTAC) that both the Michigan Horse Council (MHC) and the Michigan Mountain Biking Association (MMBA) support and would like to move forward with; and prevent the DNR from appropriately managing our public lands so that recreational users may continue to enjoy it without negatively impacting this valuable asset. In addition, allowing this bill to move out of the House Committee will force advocacy organizations––mountain biking, equestrian, and others––to waste money on legal council and transportation, money that should go into improving and expanding Michigan’s trail network. In fact, the equestrian group that supports these bills could put their money to better use if they would do as other user groups have, and work to cultivate respectful relationships with local land managers and build their own trail network. The current law supports this activity, but the user group has to be willing to do the work, something that all of us opposed to these bills have proven is not too much to ask.
Lastly, I would like to point you to three resources. The first will help you understand the origination of this bill and why the Back Country Horsemen were banned from the Pigeon River Country Forest, to begin with. The second will illustrate what really goes into building a mountain bike trail. The MMBA and other mountain biking organizations within the state adhere to trail building standards that were developed by the U.S. Forest Service and the International Mountain Bicycling Association. The third source is a listing of mountain bike trails, the great majority of which are maintained by volunteers, not necessarily IMBA or MMBA members. While this list is not complete, it is extensive. Also, volunteers are currently building new trails.
- MLive: DNR takes fair stance for Pigeon River
- IMBA: Designing and Building Sustainable Trails
- MMBA Trail Guide
Thank you for taking the time to consider my concerns and for evaluating the resources I have provided. I look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Diane Ursu
Although I was wrong on the part of the equestrians being completely banned—they were given limited access within the Pigeon River Country State Forest Area—my point was still valid. In late December or early January, MacMaster called me to discuss the situation. I empathized with his side of the story. He told me that if the equestrians were granted so many miles of additional trail access (I forget the number, but it was rather hefty)—access to trails the equestrians supposedly built—he would let the bill die. Unfortunately, his proposal doesn’t address the original issue stemming from the abusive behavior of the Back Country Horsemen toward other user groups and the land. Some advocates also suspect that the trails the equestrians built were bandit trails that were created without consulting with the DNR. I asked if MacMaster had before and after maps to show which trails the equestrians say they built and he said he would send them to me. I’m still waiting.
Currently the bill is in limbo in the House Committee while its sponsors and supporters work feverishly to bring it into compliance with federal law. Fortunately for mountain bikers and other user groups, there are many federal laws that this bill seems to violate, so compliance is something this bill may never meet, especially if it is to benefit the Back Country Horsemen.
In a December 23, 2011 letter to Representatives Frank Foster and Greg MacMaster, Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Programs Chief James B. Hodgson said:
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) and the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) are Federal and State partners under Federal law (16 USC 669). Together, the Service and MDNR are responsible for ensuring that hunting and fishing license revenue is used only for those purposes set out in Federal and State law. This protection is important to those that have paid the excise tax on sporting arms and ammunition. Their continued purchase of licenses fuels the success of the program. We protect the assets acquired with license fees and excise taxes for the sole purposes of wildlife and sport fish restoration. The Services takes this responsibility very seriously. For grant and license acquired land, no uses other than those described in law for wildlife and sport fish benefit can be allowed. We provide MDNR with the support needed to maintain program integrity and eligibility.
Sections of Draft House Bill 4684 that conflict with Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act and State Assent Legislation:
Sections that need to exempt license and grant acquired lands to prevent loss of control
These sections of HB 4684 override the authority of the MDNR to manage for wildlife restoration. As discussed in recent phone conversations between Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Programs (WSFR) staff and members of the State Legislature, any statement such as: “currently existing” or “previous were” or “at any time” is an example (Page 2, line 2 (d); Page 2, line 14— 16 (h); Page 2, 17 (i); Page 2, line 19 (j); Page 2, line 21(k). The premise that all State-owned public lands are open to equine use and equine trails unless specifically closed overrides MDNR management authority. This is in conflict with the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act, Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration, and State Assent Legislation, as it removes the capability of MDNR to exclude or otherwise regulate such use. While Section 72115 (Page 8, Lines 15 through 27 and Page 9, Lines 1 and 2) appears on the right track and reaffirms the MDNR abilities due to links with Federal Law and Grants. This section is deep within the language of the bill. The simplest fix is to state early in the legislation that MDNR lands purchased or managed with hunting and fishing license fees and wildlife and sport fish grant funding for wildlife and sport fish purposes are exempt from the definitions or mandates of this draft legislation.Additionally, Section 72115 (Page 8, Lines 15 through 27 and Page 9, Lines 1 and 2) forces the MDNR to allow horses unless it proves otherwise is contrary in relation to the acts and regulations. In practice, this typically creates an inefficient regulatory burden for the administering agency, in this case the MDNR.
Given our understanding of how limited the State budget is, we are concerned that the efforts directed toward advancing equine facilities and trails as a result of existing and proposed State law will take precedence over MDNR wildlife management responsibilities in the Pigeon River Country and other locations. MDNR must be able to fulfill their legal grant obligations, including having the resources necessary to implement wildlife management plans and conduct grant activities as planned and budgeted. Time and effort spent on non-wildlife dependent recreational activities, such as equine trail development, are not eligible for Federal funding or use of license fees. We are perplexed by continued efforts to use language that infers or implies that expanded equine use is possible, when all five previous letters consistently identified the potential loss of over $25 million dollars of federal funding as a result.
Word on the street is that the bill’s language has been changed to bring it in compliance with federal law, but I question whether that is even possible. While properly interpreting the tone of a letter is next to impossible, it is my take that Mr. Hodgson strongly suggested letting this bill go in favor of a proper land acquisition for the development of bridle trails—something that other user groups as well as much of the Michigan Horse Council have been supportive of all along.
The great majority of public trails available to the various user groups is the product of hard labor and fundraising efforts of volunteers who wanted to expand their recreational opportunities. It is important to note that these endeavors were brought to fruition with the blessing of the DNR and other land managers resulting from years of respectful partnerships culminating from respectfully cooperative efforts. This is something that the Back Country Horsemen don’t seem to want to partake in.
Michigan Mountain Biking Association advocates effectively countered the original wording of the 2010 “Right to Ride” legislation by significantly influencing it to change it from one that would turn the equestrians loose on any piece of land they so desired to ride into a bill that created the Michigan Snowmobile and Trails Advisory Council including an equine subcommittee. “The equine committee is made up of horseback riders. It was tasked with reviewing horse trail closures and developing a statewide plan for an equestrian trail network. Its creation marked real progress for horseback riders who have had no formal voice in state land use planning. The 2010 Right to Ride legislation also established clear criteria the DNR must meet to restrict access to trails—along with procedures for contesting those decisions,” Howard Meyerson explained in his December 18, 2011 Grand Rapids Press article, “Right to Ride redux: Horse bills threaten trail protection for others.”
As Slagter wrote, “Access to public land is a privilege we all can enjoy, but those gates should swing shut for those who abuse it.”
You can read the letter and bills in their entirety and their progress:
- December 23, 2011 letter to Representatives Frank Foster and Greg MacMaster from Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Programs Chief James B. Hodgson
- House Bill 4684 (2011)
- House Bill 5175 (2011)
If the equestrians had no lost so many trails throughout Michigan, there would never have been a need for the right to ride bills. The Equestrians in Michigan have a LONG history of cooperation and volunteer hours and donated materials for many of the state forests and parks. The cooperation was there for more than 50 years. However, through various means, the equestrians have continued to lose access to public land as have many other recreationists. It is not only the horses that are being denied access to public land.
This is not an issue of “Back Country Horsemen” being “kicked” off the land. It was all equestrians and mtn bikers and some others, whether Michigan is their home state or they come from out of state. Back Country Horsemen – Pigeon River & Beyond (BCH – PRB) came into being because the established horse councils and associations were unable to change anything for a variety of reasons; one being the inability to spend money on lobbying because they would lose their 501(c)3 status.
Members of BCH – PRB, are also members of many other horse groups in the state – and many are also avid hunters, anglers and pursue other outdoor recreation besides horseback riding – some even ride mtn bikes or other 2-wheeled non-motorized vehicles.
Without the Right to Ride bills that were signed into law, there would be no Equine Trails Subcommittee (which was originally supposed to be a committee reporting to the DNR). Equestrians had NO unique voice on the, then existing MSTAC. As a matter of fact, Governor Granholm AXED the MSTAC – which created a huge nightmare because then, there was no authority to dispense funds allocated to that committee. NO OUTDOOR RECREATION GROUP had a voice with the DNR. The Right to Ride Bill was the vehicle to create a NEW MSTAC – which added 2 equestrian representatives – hand picked of course by the staff of the DNR – that committee.
So far as “bandit trails”…. these are not unique to horseback riders. Many hikers, mtn bikers, and mushroom gatherers, hunters, berry pickers, create their own trails upon the land. In fact, I believe that many of the trails within South Michigan that are ridden & maintained by mtn bikers were originally “bandit trails”… Remember – the mtn bike trail system didn’t just magically appear all at once. You started with some rough stuff and went from there. Your trails have been, what, 25 years in the making now?
I agree that the mtn bike groups are very good at creating trails. But please – the horse people have been creating trails for FAR longer and have used – in many places – state of the art (at the time) ground matting, geotextile, etc. etc. The failures the horse people suffered – helped create newer and better products and methods. In addition, many equestrian organizations paid for the wells at state parks and forests; they build long walkways across swamp land that not just horse people use. These didn’t happen without coordinating with the department or the US Forest Service – who is much easier to work with, I might add.
So far as who has more impact on the land? We all leave an impact. But if there are 20,000 – 30,000 horses being ridden on trails – it would seem to me that spreading that out on MORE and diverse trails would REDUCE the impact! Regarding a rounded divot versus a single channel from a tire? Some naturalists feel that the round “hole” of a hoof print allows water to pool and gradually absorb into the ground rather than race down a channel that directs water in a downhill fashion. Obviously where there is clay – nothing absorbs, it only evaporates. It’s an opinion. As I said – we all leave an impact on the land. Whether you are building a housing development which of course is a HUGE impact, or building a new road or replacing a bridge with something larger. They all impact the environment because dirt and gravel and trees and vegetation are moved around and relocated.
I have documents and books that go back to the early 1960s of meeting minutes between DNR and horse people. When there were no “mtn” bikes – just bikes. When there were none or very few ATVs or ORVs or snowmobiles. There is plenty of documentation of the volunteer hours and materials and WELLS and outhouses dug and cared for by horse people.
Your recreational activity is not better or worse than horseback riding.
Senator Cameron Brown, before he left office, offered to help your recreational group with legislation of its own if you felt the horses were taking priority. As I have said in the past and I will repeat here. I don’t want those who ride bikes to create rules and laws for horseback riding. I don’t want those who hunt to make laws and rules for fishing. I don’t want horseback riders to make laws for snowmobiling. So I am sure that those who ride mtn bikes don’t want horse people to change or modify the rules that you use.
The horses lost access to public access NOT because of hunters.
There has NEVER BEEN an audit done by USFWS, regarding horseback riding in Michigan – Director Stokes admitted that about 1 year ago at an NRC meeting.
The USFWS has conducted trip reports. And in the most recent one regarding the Pigeon River State Forest they pointed out that the DNR was on the brink of diversion NOT BECAUSE OF HORSE activity – but because of their lack of management in MANY AREAS – including the fact that it IS a state forest and the DNR was using restricted funding sources for wildlife management and is managing the state forest for timber … which is mismanagement of restricted funded lands.
The fact that there is CAMPING (the non-equestrian campground known as Pickerel Lake) on PR – DJ funded lands (horse back riding and other trail use IS an allowable activity if written into the management plan – but CAMPING on PR-DJ funded land IS NOT) which is another place where the DNR creates a potential diversion of funds.
Some paragraphs from that trip report: words in [ ] are mine.
Oil and gas developments cause the clearing of several acres of forest. All of the sites that we observed were without topsoil and barren of most vegetation, except non-native plants, especially spotted knapweed (a “noxious weed”). These developments result in long-term habitat destruction.”
Mineral leasing and site development are not related to the administration of the state fish & wildlife agency. The developments interfere with the use of the land for fish & wildlife purposes; therefore there developments may represent a diversion of license fees.”
and further:
The Pigeon River Country is, in fact, a STATE FOREST. It is managed with a “multiple-use” philosophy, as are nearly all public forest lands. The appearance and function of the units is that of a forest managed for an array of intensive, non-wildlife-dependednt, recreational uses within the framework of maximum sustainable timber harvest. The clear purpose of the Wildlife Restoration Act [i.e., PR & DJ] is to insure management for wildlife restoration and wildlife-dependent recreation [aka - hunting and fishing]. The PRCSF license fee acquired lands do not appear to function as a wildlife area as a whole.
and…
The foregoing issues are not unique to the PRCSF and they concern all manner of outdoor recreation, timber management, and mineral extraction, not just equestrian uses. Since the license fee lands are interwoven in a complex mix of other natural resource management areas, in order to bring the management of the PRCSF back into compliance with WDFR regulations, specific fish & wildlife goals and plans must be developed for the area, most likely at the compartment level. … [or the Department could exchange the Federally funded lands with other acreage.]
Lastly, pointing the finger at a state rep because YOU were unable to attend a meeting is very poor. If you had no answer to your email – did you try calling?
Gabrielle Hume
Member of MTRA, Alpena Horsemens Assoc, Shiawassee Trail Riders
VP of Back Country Horsemen, PR&B
“Lastly, pointing the finger at a state rep because YOU were unable to attend a meeting is very poor. If you had no answer to your email – did you try calling? ”
Gabrielle, first, I think you misunderstood some of what I wrote based on your response—this first quote being one example. I did not point my finger at Greg MacMaster because I was unable to attend a meeting. What you are referencing to is an apology from me to him for my inability to attend a meeting. I then proceeded with my viewpoint in that very same email.
Rep. MacMaster followed up that email to me with a phone call. On this call, he was very clear that this new Right to Ride bill exists because the PRCBCH does not have access to so many miles of trails.
This blog post is not against the Right to Ride legislation that was passed last year. It is in opposition to the most recent Right to Ride legislation that MacMaster and the PRCBCH are currently trying to push through the MI House Committee. This legislation is a threat to trails currently used by other user groups.
Unfortunately, agreements set during the 60s are no longer valid because they do not take into consideration many of the new sports and lands that are in existence today; nor do they take into consideration the erosion issues that we currently have in sensitive soils (which may not have been an issue in the 60s since land does change over the years) or the knowledge that we now have of our environment due to the experience we have gained over the last five decades.
Fort Custer is an example of an equestrian trail that was impassable because it was abandoned. The SWMMBA took over that abandoned trail and used their own money and time to recreate that trail as well as three additional loops that the equestrians in that area started to destroy. This is justified since any former agreement with Fort Custer and the equestrians was probably rendered void since the trail was abandoned. Trail MOUs usually include a clause nullifying an agreement upon abandonment. Yes, I have official DNR documents, MOUs, and photos supporting what I just said, so any argument otherwise is useless.
This is the real issue: other user groups are using their own money and time to build and maintain these trails, and the equestrians who use these trails aren’t stepping up. Yes, there are many equestrian trails that are built, maintained, and paid for by equestrians, and the Michigan Horse Council has proof of this. In fact, many of the equestrian clubs, such as the Shiawassee Trail Riders, do the exact same thing the Michigan Mountain Biking Association does. I think we all agree that our two user groups can share these trails, nor do we want to, and we respect that.
What I wrote in this blog is information that has also been approved by mountain biking and equestrian advocates. Not only am I involved on the mountain biking advocacy side, but I have a close contact within the Michigan Horse Council who lets me know if the information I am sharing needs to be corrected.
Let me reiterate: I am *not* against the current Right to Ride law. I am against the since-then introduced legislation that will greatly alter that law and all that we have accomplished with it. The new legislation gets rid of restrictions and the need for a review process that fosters a positive relationship among user groups.
I and my fellow mountain bikers are FOR equestrians and other user groups having their own trails, but not at our expense. We simply want others to put forth the money and effort that we do, and we have no desire to move in on their trails.