Michigan Votes Forum

 I can't for the life of me understand why the DNR would band horseback riding on state land. ORV cause more damage then horses ever would. Horse riding is very relaxing.

 Don't worry, they've banned plenty of ORV use too.  This is our land, why is the government taking it from us and not letting us use it for recreation?

 perhaps because they don't believe that we, the people, own it.

Perhaps because it is our land, and as such, needs to be preserved for all of us to enjoy.

 But gypsy, how are we to enjoy it if we can't use it?

Enjoy it by all means, just don't mess it up for the rest of us. That's one of those rules we learn in kindergarten.

 But of course, just by being there, humans "mess it up".

If you paid attention in kindergarten, you learned how not to mess it up.

 Sorry gypsy, that's a weak response.  If you walk through the woods you mess it up.  You break ground cover, you leave marks.  By the same token, if you make a trail for a motorcycle or snowmobile, you leave marks.  Either way, you don't do any permanent damage as nature heals itself.

Don't be sorry. I really don't put any credence in your opinion of my responses.

I am reserving my opinion of this bill until I hear exactly why the DNR wants to close certain horseback riding areas on state land. I generally believe that all forms of recreation can be enjoyed on our state lands, but also believe they need to be regulated, so as to preserve and care for our land. This is the role we have given to the DNR. Some areas can withstand the use of ATV's and bikes and horses, others are more sensitive.

Sure nature can heal the land. But nature works on a much slower time table than man does. What man can destroy in minutes may take nature ages to repair. We need to be good stewarts of the land so nature doesn't have to heal it.

I anticipate your response to the "tyranny" of the state, but history has shown us what man will do to the land if unregulated.

This legislation clearly is a response to last year’s Natural Resources Commission and DNR decision to close certain trails and areas within Pigeon River Country State Forest to horse traffic.  The same decision closed certain trails to bicycle traffic, as well.

Purpose of the order was to protect trail surfaces and soils from undue wear and tear created by certain types of uses; to minimize conflicts between user groups, including hikers, bikers and equestrians; and to ensure that all users have ample opportunity to enjoy themselves and their recreational pastimes on public lands.  It is a classic case of “resource” allocation to protect and serve everyone’s interests.

Anyone who has hiked on trails traveled by horses is well aware of the miserable experiences such hiking can be.  Horses’ hooves cut into and churn up many natural trail surfaces – especially where there are loamy or sandy soils, as in PRCSF – making them difficult going for walkers and all but impossible for bicyclists.  Dodging piles of horse manure is no fun for pedestrians or bikers, nor is being forced off the trail when meeting a half ton animal that may or may not be under full control of its rider.

As for the argument that trail or area closures to horse traffic deprive anyone of access to State land, they do not.  Anyone still may use or be on the trails or in such areas, but the horse has to stay behind.  Horses are not people. 

HB 4610 proposes to favor a special interest group (equestrians) by interfering with NRC and DNR authority to impose reasonable rules and regulations for managing the use of public land for the benefit of everyone.  It ought not pass.

Thank you freespeaker for your informative response. If what you say is true, and I have read nothing so far to dispute it, I too oppose this bill.

 Don't bother anticipating anything from me, and don't suppose to speak or think for me.

History has shown what powerful government does for the land.  The former USSR is great example.  If all the hikers want to have a big chunk of land to walk on, I suggest they pool their resources and buy some property.  Then they can do whatever they want with it.

changeagent:

...

If all the hikers want to have a big chunk of land to walk on, I suggest they pool their resources and buy some property.  Then they can do whatever they want with it.

The same could be said of and to the equestrians, ORV fans, etc.  But we are looking at public land, which should be managed in such a way that all users have a chance to fully enjoy their recreational pastimes.  That is why this legislation, which is written to favor one user group over all others, should be rejected.  

Hikers, bikers, ATVers, and horseback riders have already pooled their resources and have a big chunk of land to walk on, actually, many big chunks of land to walk on. Public land.

 Yep, and a lot of other people that will never set foot on it helped pay for it too.  They had their resources taken from them to benefit the few people who will use the "public" land.  I guess it's only public for those that use it.

Huh?

 Thank you for introducing this bill.  The DNR has way too much power.  They think they can do whatever they please. They need to be put in their place.  There is no good reason why horses should not be allowed where they have been allowed for years!

 Over the recent years we have seen literally thousands acres taken away-that is our right to ride on these lands-by turning them into a State Game Preserves....The decisions to do this need to be based on sound scientific research, not just merely because it sounds good or fits their agenda.  We the people have finally taken all we can and are taking a stand to try and right the wrong done to the taxpaying citizens in this state.  Through the help of a large group of legislators we are very encouraged with the bi-partisan support.  We the People for the People should be our motto of our government!

Here's a place to see lists of trails in different areas.  At the top right, choose a trail type and then type in the state in the "Search" box.

 http://www.trailsource.com/scripts/search.asp?type=SLED 

http://www.trailsource.com/scripts/search.asp?type=HORSE

I compared Michigan trails to New York trails when I recently found out that in ONE COUNTY in New York, they are opening 500 MILES of "wheeler trails" (ATV) (Lewis County)

I did that becaues New York State and Michigan have similar climates and socio-economic infrastructure.  New York has extremely strong tourism ... I'm not so sure about Michigan, and I don't mean advertising dollars - I mean a reliance of state revenues from toursim despite the fact that Michigan has far more lakes and boating opportunities.

When you search for horse trails in Michigan - there are only 2 "STATE" listings; but many federal and then more county than state...

This legislation is important not just to re-open horse trails... but as the first step in waking up the DNR to allow citizens AND VISITORS to USE the land. Not hide it away like a plastic cover over a couch.   

According to the MDNR website, less then 1/3 of the money for state land comes from hunting & fishing licenses. That means that MORE than 2/3 of the money comes from other sources... i.e., camping fees, mineral & oil lease concessions, entrance fees, etc. 

So...  instead of DNR harboring the land in the name of one or two stake holders, let's make them open the land to MANY stakeholders.  Horses, mountain bikes, hikers, berry pickers, bird watchers, etc. DNR tries to pit each user group against another. THere are many active user groups that are more than willing to volunteer their time and effort and even money... to build, maintain, and care for trail systems.  But it needs to be all trail and land users that are given the opportunity... not a select few.

New York has 11,095 acres of state land, Michigan has 4,489. One would correctly deduce New York is going to have more trails available to all forms of users than Michigan. Yet on the site trailuser recommended, Michigan has nearly as many trails available to horseback riders as New York. Granted not as many on state land, but being has New york has three times as much state land, that is expected.

I oppose this bill as an infringement on the DNR's mission to manage our state lands.

 Gypsy - Can you tell me where you found those figures for state land?

The MIchigan DNR website http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7-153-10366-121638--,00.html claims it manages the largest state forest:

The DNR manages the largest state forest system in the nation (3.9 million acres).

Are you saying the DNR claims are Wrong?  Here is what it says on the DNR website:

Again...  there are too many "land" designations: State Forest, state game land, state parks, wildlife areas, etc.  I also think that their numbers for miles of trails, etc. is very outdated since so many miles have been closed to any other user beside hunters and hikers.

Gypsy said:  "DNR's mission to manage state lands"...  No. Sorry. Their mission, as stated on their website is:  DNR Mission
The Michigan Department of Natural Resources is committed to the conservation, protection, management, use and enjoyment of the state's natural resources for current and future generations.

Michigan is 96,810 square miles   New York State is 54,475 square miles   My apologies - I thought the 2 states were closer in size. I didn't realize that Michigan was ALMOST double the size of New York.

Managing the land does NOT mean keeping users from it. It means finding ways for multiple users to use the land. Not creating trails that only one or two stakeholders can use. Not decreasing trail useage so that the existing trails suffer higher traffic and therefore, greater erosion or compaction.  There's no reason why snowmobiles and horses and hikers, berry pickers, bird watchers,  cannot use the same pathways. Different seasons for different users.  ATVs and mountain bikes - both compact soil and create a suitable surface for those activities to share. During large game hunting - consider the use of horses for those who cannot hike into distant regions.

If there are paved roads near where you live, but the DOT closed them because they were too costly to maintain or because motorcycles wanted exclusive use for their warm season travel. What would you do?  What if the DOT said.. Oh, well there are roads over there in that county to drive on, go there and use those roads.  We want to keep these roads, here, just for Motorcycles because they don't do as much damage. And while we're at it, only semi-trucks can travel on I-75 because that's why the Federal Government paid for the Interstate System (a lie? just one of many).  

that's not managing. that's controlling.

 There is a fallacy that Michigan has so many miles of horse trails. They do not.  There is a trail that crosses the state of michigan. It is NOT entirely on state land. The campgrounds and maintenance is NOT entirely by MDNR. Some camps are county; some are Federal.  There are other areas of trail systems... but a large number are county recreation areas.

The Michigan shore to shore trail system, created by trail riders, is a little over 200 miles. Brookfield Trails in NY - only 1 of many  major equestrian areas in NY - is 130 miles of trail. Otter Creek trails are 65 miles; These are only 2, state maintained, FREE OF CHARGE, trails systems with camping. In addition, both of those horse trail areas provide more than one disabled rider ramp out at scenic locations on the trail systems.  If NY State can do it, why can't Michigan? 

If Michigan has so much more land than NY; why does it have so many fewer miles of trails?  Not just for horses, but for ALL users?

 The problem is that the NREPA 451 law that applies to this, does not have a section for non-motorized trails that covers equestrian use. It has section 324.721 and 324.723 that are applicable to horses. Therefore, unless the entire NREPA 451 is changed, this is where it starts. with HB 4610. One part at a time.

This legislation is important to allow people to USE the land that has a history of prior horse / pack animal use. The more users are spread out, the less impact to certain areas occurs. 

My reference is: http://www.nrcm.org/documents/publiclandownership.pdf

My apologies, I said thousands, it is millions. Just add three more 0's to each. Same relationship.

You are splitting hairs with the mission statement. Managing state lands is part of their mission, as state lands are part of the natural resources they manage.

Michigan is not 96,810 sq. miles, it is 56,809, while New York is 47,223. Hardly double the size of New York, so no need for your apology. Check it out at http://www.worldatlas.com/aatlas/infopage/usabysiz.htm.

There are many very good reasons why snowmobilers, horses, hikers, berry pickers, bird watchers, etc. cannot use the same trails. Most of these activities you mention are done through all seasons, save berry picking.

Your closing analogy can only be an attempt at humor.

 My reference included water.  I didn't realize it at the time. So back to my original comparison then. The 2 states are more equal in size; therefore, there should be an equal amount of recreational opportunity.

Gypsy wrote: There are many very good reasons why snowmobilers, horses, hikers, berry pickers, bird watchers, etc. cannot use the same trails. Most of these activities you mention are done through all seasons, save berry picking

Hardly - snowmobiles do not use trails when and where there is no snow. Bird watchers are rarely out in the winter.  Hikers do not typically use trails that have more than 6 inches of snow.  So  yes, these users CAN share trails. Perhaps you would wish to do some research on how other states handle multi-user trails. Dr. Gene Wood at Clemson University in South Carolina is a top proponent of multi-user trails.  I've also included links where mountain bikers, hikers, and horse people have shared in efforts.

Gypsy wrote: I am reserving my opinion of this bill until I hear exactly why the DNR wants to close certain horseback riding areas on state land. I generally believe that all forms of recreation can be enjoyed on our state lands, but also believe they need to be regulated, so as to preserve and care for our land. This is the role we have given to the DNR. Some areas can withstand the use of ATV's and bikes and horses, others are more sensitive.

The DNR claimed that horses were driving Elk from the area. In fact, it was not horses (read about how the elk have crashed horse farm fences and driven horses from their purchased hay) that drove the elk - it was the lack of food source. The elk have done thousands of dollars of damage to farms in the area. The DNR brought the elk in, and receive money from the Rocky Mountain Elk Association and the state - but something isn't working. The buckwheat that was planted was not palatable to the elk, so they sought native Michigan grasses growing and baled on nearby farms. So... it's false that the horses push the elk away. Many riders have photos of elk. Using horses to travel to see the elk is one of the safest, least offensive methods of seeing this animal.  In fact, for persons like myself with an injured leg, riding a horse is the best way for me to travel the wild areas of Michigan since walking long distances is not feasible.

Then the DNR claimed that horses were responsible for non-native weeds in the area. This is totally disproven theory with 6 different research studies that were presented to the DNR in 2008.  Horses do not eat very many weeds to begin with. They eat grass.. Timothy, alfalfa, orchard, bermuda, brome, etc.  What the studies ALSO show is that the horse's digestive system (different from deer, goats, cows) is too hot for most seeds to survive.  Seeds are typically dispersed by birds and small seed-eating mammals.  One study showed that nothing grew from horse manure. Rarely, native grass grew from leftover hay.

There is more, much more.  The DNR expects horses to use roads where the horse and rider are endangered by vehicular traffic. The camp sites that are left are too few, and in some cases, too small for the large rigs we use. Many of the rigs we use have self-contained bathrooms which means we pack out what we pack in.

There was a hearing in Lansing in front of the House Appropriations Committee last year. Contact Rep Tim Moore if you want more info on this issue and why he introduced this legislation. Also Representatives Kevin Elsenheimer or Joel Sheltrown (Committee chair for Tourism, Outdoor Rec, & Nat Resources)

Also - go to some of the sites linked below to see how various groups have come together to do repair to trails. Horses / mules are an excellent method of carrying materials to deep forest areas where motorized or wheeled vehicles cannot go. Other users can take advantage of working WITH equestrians, rather than against them.

http://www.pbase.com/bchw/3_09_gravel_haul

http://www.bchw.org/videos.htm

I hope that this helps others understand what has happened and what can continue to happen when government agencies impose arbitrary rulings.  Perhaps my analagy to roads is a little off - but not by much.  It is exactly what happens to many areas of Michigan. People have spent thousands of dollars buying property in areas expecting to CONTINUE use the adjacent state land in a manner they have in the past. To have it closed suddenly, without user input, is devastating.  It would be no different than buying lake front property that allowed motor boats, sail boats, canoes, swimming and then have an agency block your use for "perceived" reasons with no proper research behind the reasons.

I hope you'll investigate more. Thanks.

Gypsy, that is precisely the reason U.S. Fish and Game in their comment paper relative to the PRC State Forest stated  that the equestrian activity appears to be   unregulated.  Now who's job do you think it is to regulate??  Do you know that the day after the land use order on May 8th 08  the DNR suddenly had an epiphany and decided to regulate the land. Yes that's right; prior to the signing the DNR had no law enforcement present.  How fast would you drive on the expressway if you never saw a policeman???  For the most part, self policing policies were in place and worked.  Wouldn't you think that there would be signage indicating what to regulate?????  I might as well tell you that the day after the land use order was signed that posts were placed in the ground with signage on hundreds of trails that we were now off limits.  I never knew government to work that fast.  Predestined intentionally exclusionary elitist agenda!  We heard comments at the NRC meeting 1 month before the signing that "We must protect the Pigeon from consumer use!"  Hang On, Your group is next!

A 

 b

abut the public properties. That is my hope, and I will be voting as I did originally in favor of this, but I may