And the plan is that we will be there tonight

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Unfortunately, agreements set during the 60s are no longer valid because they do not take into consideration many of the new sports and lands that are in existence today; nor do they take into consideration the erosion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.

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