Environment and Property Rights

Re: 2009 Senate Bill 496 (Impose state land horseback riding fee )

Tori2432 — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 02:50:15 GMT

What good is insurance for horse riders? We have our own insurance that covers our 'inherent dangers'.

Re: 2009 Senate Bill 496 (Impose state land horseback riding fee )

msbusdr — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 22:54:25 GMT

The more I read from this Trailuser person, the more I like this person. You have really done your homework. Thank you. I am not a "well-off" person. But IF the state did decide to ask ALL non-motorized trail users to pay a tax, I would pay it with them. But until then, why should I be the person picking up the tab? I am one of the few that actually get out there and make new trails with my sweat and two hands. On foot and on horseback. I am one of the one's that maintain our current trails. Along with many of my friends who are horse riders as well. Keep going Trailuser! You are hopefully opening the eyes of some of these tax pushers. They do need to watch thier backs, I bet they use those trails too. I have also cleaned up after a lot of hikers, hunters, bikers, ect and yes, even other riders.

Re: 2009 Senate Bill 496 (Impose state land horseback riding fee )

msbusdr — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 22:40:45 GMT

"First, it is evident that trail riding is an activity for the relatively well-off"? What? Take a look around. Horse owners like everyone else in this state have been hit hard by the fall of this economy. I am certainly not "well-off" as a single women making just over the state poverty level. But I do work my butt off to maintain my horse. And love him dearly. As I consider him one of my best friends. I work above and beyond my normal every day job to keep him. Most of the horse owners I know personally I would certainly NOT label as "well-off" but rather normal, everyday, hard working citizens of this state. In our local park, we are required to share our trails with all non-motorized use. Why should I have to pay to use if they don't?!!! Where will you all draw the line? If you want to see who is causing a "severe impact on the natural resources of any non-motorized trail" then get out there and see for yourself. It is the people who are leaving their shell casings and empty water bottles and pop/beer cans along the trails. Everything our horses leave is biodegradable. Don't go after the horse for the damage, look to the trail users who are human. Horses do nothing themselves that is not natural.

Re: 2009 Senate Bill 496 (Impose state land horseback riding fee )

catherinea — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 18:00:37 GMT

I agree that horseriding definitely has an impact on the environment - but so do many other sports/leisure activities that are not burdened with taxes yet. I have the feeling that if this bill is passed this is just the beginning :-/

Re: 2009 Senate Bill 496 (Impose state land horseback riding fee )

FreeSpeaker — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 16:17:39 GMT

rossmanl:

...

All this petty arguing is just holding things up and giving the anti horse people exactly what they want. We need to start listening, looking for common ground and working towards solutions so we can start riding!

I don't know any "anti-horse people," but I do know quite a number of people who are very realistic about the impacts horses and horse traffic have on forest campsites, trails, and on other users. It is refreshing to see a trail rider acknowledge those realities. This -- recognition and acknowledgment of a problem -- is a big and usually difficult first step toward resovling the problem.

The common reality, I believe, is that all kinds of "users" enjoy and want access to state land. The common ground to be sought is how to keep disparate uses, which have disparate impacts on the land and others' enjoyment of resources and facilities, from interfering with one another. That will require some real give-and-take.

Re: 2009 Senate Bill 496 (Impose state land horseback riding fee )

gypsy — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 13:36:34 GMT

rossmanl:
All this petty arguing is just holding things up and giving the anti horse people exactly what they want. We need to start listening, looking for common ground and working towards solutions so we can start riding!

Well said.

Re: 2009 Senate Bill 496 (Impose state land horseback riding fee )

KV — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 13:18:09 GMT

SO WELL PUT TRAILUSER ! COME ON PEOPLE, OPEN YOUR EYES! READ BETWEEN THE LINES> THIS BILL SHOULD NOT BE!NEXT STEP WILL BE TAX TO BREATH THE AIR!

Re: 2009 Senate Bill 496 (Impose state land horseback riding fee )

rossmanl — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 21:07:29 GMT

First, I'd like to state that I am a trail rider and have ridden for as long as I can remember. Having said that it saddens me to see horse people being so naive and disingenous.

Horse absolutely impact and often damage trails, stream and river banks, as well as pollute water they defecate in and swim in if they have fly spray on. Horse camp fire rings contain all kinds of things they shouldn't. Manure is left or piled high just out of sight of the picket line areas. I am not letting anyone else off the hook-after deer season, the woods are a sad sight as well. Two cycle snowmobiles are a disgrace and mountain bikes are terribly destructive, but horse people need to clean up their act.

The most vocal group against horses on state hunting lands is the MUCC. Until horse people realize the clout MUCC has with the Michigan legislature we're not going to get a whole lot accomplished. Until compromise is made with the MUCC, we ain't gettin' nowhere! I don't know how valid the issues are with Pigeon River Forest, but we have to at least acknowledge that the possiblity exists that there is some validity to the MUCC and DNR claims. Poo pooing them and crying foul is a senseless waste of time.

Regarding the complaints over bridle tags or extra money for trail useage, I am so sick of people complainging about something so short sighted. I would gladly pay an extra $15 or $25 to get to use trails. Is it fair? I don't know , but life isn't fair. Get over it! Again, if you want to move forward, compromise for heaven's sake! Hunters and anglers have had the "we pay so we get extra" on their side forever. Ok, fine, I'll pay extra. If I pay, I get to play. I read something on this thread about why pay for nothing? Nothing??? I want to ride on those trails. That's a whole lot of something if you ask me!

All this petty arguing is just holding things up and giving the anti horse people exactly what they want. We need to start listening, looking for common ground and working towards solutions so we can start riding!

Re: 2009 Senate Bill 496 (Impose state land horseback riding fee )

gypsy — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 10:43:30 GMT

Being "free" doesn't mean you can do whatever you want. Public land is just that, public. It belongs to the people, all of the people. The government is the representative, in this nation at least, of the people. All of the people do not have the same interest. The government is tasked with protecting and using our public property for the good of all the people.

Re: 2009 Senate Bill 496 (Impose state land horseback riding fee )

citizen for freedom — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 22:32:14 GMT

When will people of the "free" America realize that we are no longer "free". If you want to allow the government to start dictating what can be done on public land, you might as well allow them to run the rest of you life as well.

Re: 2009 Senate Bill 496 (Impose state land horseback riding fee )

TrailUser — Thu, 07 May 2009 17:31:20 GMT

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?

Re: 2009 Senate Bill 496 (Impose state land horseback riding fee )

FreeSpeaker — Thu, 07 May 2009 15:05:09 GMT

Horseback riding imposes the most severe impact on natural resources of any non-motorized trail use, by a huge margin. Furthermore, horse traffic on trails displaces all other forms of non-motorized use. It is only proper, then, that equestrians pay a modest fee, as set out in this legislation, for the development and maintenance of a trail network for their use on public lands.

If, indeed, horseback trail riding in Michigan is an $8 billion “industry” as claimed above, then the proposed fees make good sense on two additional fronts.

First, it is evident that trail riding is an activity for the relatively well-off, who certainly can afford to pay a modest fee for the use of public lands to support their activity. Second, industrial use of public land should not be permitted without fees payable to the public coffers.

Re: 2009 Senate Bill 496 (Impose state land horseback riding fee )

TrailUser — Thu, 07 May 2009 03:24:01 GMT

UH, no. That's not what this is about.

Every state (I believe every state) has what's known as Equine Liability Laws...The exact wording is slightly different from state to state, but essentially, unless an equine professional is completely negligent, you can't sue them for injuries.

States are inherently excused by persons on public property, again, unless there is gross negligence.

here's the MICHIGAN equine liability act: http://asci.uvm.edu/equine/law/equine/mi_equ.htm

This bill was proposed and is VERY VERY poorly prepared. The fees and bridle tags are an attempt to get the Michigan Dept of Natural Resources to pay attention to an $8 BILLION industry and open up state land for their use and riding. The problem is, they are putting the cart before the horse - no pun intended. Searching the MDNR site shows 108 Recreational Areas. Only 2 show Equestrian use. So why would equestrians pay for nothing?

The danger in legislation like this is that it targets a single-user. If equestrians are legislated into paying for their activity; why not those who use bicycles (mountain bikers)? Why not those who canoe or kayak? Berry pickers and mushroom gatherers take from the land. Will they have to pay? A friend who watches birds asked if she would have to get a "binocular tag" ???

It's dangerous legislation and its intent is for the wrong reason.

Oh, and before someone claims that bird watchers, berry pickers, and mushroom gatherers don't cause erosion... no they do not. But they typically use trails that are there, to get back into nature. I won't ever forget being in a campground intended for horses with scarlet tangers flitting all around and the bird watchers thanking the horse people for all the trails and boardwalks through the swamplands that they could use to see "their birds".

Re: 2009 Senate Bill 496 (Impose state land horseback riding fee )

gypsy — Thu, 07 May 2009 01:15:06 GMT

I don't see any reference in the text of this proposed legislation that allocates the fees for insurance. The fees are to be used to maintain and improve the trails on state land for horseback riding.

Re: 2009 Senate Bill 496 (Impose state land horseback riding fee )

shearwater — Thu, 07 May 2009 01:03:33 GMT

Horse riding has inherent dangers and should be covered by insurance which the riding fees should pay for. Good legislation!