Have you ever considered the benefits of having horse backcountry riders on your side? Lost people. Who do you think saddles up to ride in swamps and deep brush when people become lost? Equestrians have been called upon not only to search for lost people, but to look for bodies. You can't do that from a bike or an ATV. Horses will "alert" on many things just like a hunting dog. Mounted posses are also used for crowd control. New Orleans Mardi Gras comes to mind. Bikes and horses are used in many communities for law enforcement.
Horseback riding would NOT make a severe impact on the land, if it were not so restricted that so many had to travel the same few feet over and over. I believe that mountain bikes cause the same amount of damage that horses do, if not more. Have you ever seen the damage that logging equipment makes to the forests? That's far more devastating than any recreational participant would do.
$25 a year is not a modest amount by any means. Compare that to what snowmobiles pay. They have a 3-year registration as a motorized vehicle ($22 or $7 and change per year) and they pay $20 a year to ride on state trails. Snowmobiles ARE a commercialized industry (http://www.fishweb.com/recreation/snowmobile/trails/index.html)
Horse traffic does NOT displace all other forms of non-motorized use. I suggest that you investigate how other states and areas manage multiple users. It's not that difficult. The Federal Highway Commission - DOT has a very nice publication that helps local government agencies work through the land management process. Clemson University in South Carolina has excellent programs. Southern California has excellent programs. In NY City's central park, there are horseback riders and joggers mixed with strollers and bikes.
There is no reason that hunters cannot use trails that equestrians make and keep clear through many months of the year. I have ridden trails that anglers have created along rivers - and picked up their trash (styrofoam bait boxes, empty soda and water bottles, tin-foil from their lunch, etc.) to carry out in my trail bags. Horses do not require exclusive use - we only wish for others to understand how to approach a 1000 pound animal so as not to create a danger to themselves or the horse and rider. Of all the people I encounter they all seem to want to pet my horse and talk to me.
As I wrote - bird watchers use the trails. Berry pickers and mushroom gatherers. Mountain bikers have used the trails and in many cases, have taken over horse trails - denying the equestrians access to trails and bridges that they created.
Trail riding is NOT for a relatively few well-off. That would be like saying the watercraft and water sports are for the well-off based on how expensive those activities are. Horseback riding and camping is a very wonderful way for families and youth to get out and enjoy the back woods. For many who are not able to walk long distances (like myself), it is the ONLY way. Trail riding is a way for youth to get out of the house and learn how to care for the environment. To witness turtles, deer, birds, and many other small creatures. If you would like to read comments from therapuetic riding instructors, from aged people that can no longer bike or hike, from persons who work with troubled youth, go here: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/Enact-HB4610-Michigan-Right-to-Ride-legislation
There is NO INDUSTRIAL use of state land by equestrian trail riders. I do not know where you get that idea. There are or were one or two public riding stables but I don't know if they still exist under the strict regulations any more. In fact, if Michigan would consider more advertising and promotion of horse trail riding, they could generate a great deal of money in tourism - just like so many other states do.
The $8 billion mentioned is what equestrians hold in capital / taxable assets. Farms and farm equipment. livestock, trucks, trailers. That means continuous flow of money to state general funds through property taxes and registrations. The $1 billion that equestrians contribute in direct sales (feed and similar supplies) produces sales tax that goes to the general fund for use ANYPLACE in Michigan; ammo and arrows and angler accesories which are federally taxed and that money goes out of the state.
Again. This is not about who does the most damage or who can pay. It's about targeting a single user group that has no trails to begin with. And how would this be enforced? By increasing the DNR budget for more COs? If the state chooses to target horseback riders, why couldn't they target canoers or kayakers? It could be argued that they create impact on the banks of rivers and streams taking their watercraft in and out. Why not target mountain bikers? They create as much or more damage to the land. Do you see what I'm getting at?
The MDNR receives money not from the general fund, but from oil and mineral leases. In 2008, this amounted to $67 MIllion dollars. NREPA 451 states how that money is to be divided up and used. MDNR uses 2/3 to BUY land and 1/3 is then split amongst other uses - fisheries and hatcheries; improving parks and rec areas; managing the facilities, paying taxes. In addition to the $67 Million dollars, MDNR collects license fees and camping fees that they can use. They receive Federal funding through various programs.
At this point, the MDNR has bought so much land, it can barely pay the taxes on that land (ask your local tax collector if you do not believe me). You might look at HB 4204 if you want to see something changed to give money back to the DNR. It would decrease the amount of money the DNR can use to buy land (when is enough, enough? When do the residents get to USE what they bought?)
So. Instead of cheering for one group to pay to play... I suggest you watch your back before someone urges their congressional leader to create a "use tax" for kayaks, canoes, bikers, hikers, strollers, roller blades, berry cans, and binoculars. Oh, and dog handlers and mushers, cross-country skiers. The list goes on with many non-motorized trail users. Except who would make the trails?