# Right to Ride HB4610



## brisco

*I am an outdoor enthusiast as you all are - however I enjoy the outdoors from atop my horse. I love camping with the horses and my friends starting around Mother's Day in May through October if weather permits. On the 28th of April I attended a committee hearing for House Bill 4610 known as Right to Ride. This is our effort as horsemen/women to regain many of the trails and campsites the DNR has banned us from in the last several years. *
*[/COLOR]* 
*What I'd like to know is this: is there any conflict between hunters/fishers and horseback riders? I really don't believe there is but the DNR would like us to believe otherwise. The DNR seems to want to pit one user group against another in Michigan.*

*Back to HB4610. This successfully passed in committee this past Tuesday. Soon the House will be voting on this bill. I hope you outdoors people wish us well. If we do have some conflict of interest, we'd like to know about it. Many of our people are also hunters and fishers and they haven't noticed problems either.*

*Hope this is a good place to post this. Let me hear your thoughts.*

*Elaine*


----------



## harpo1

I hear you brisco! I also enjoy a scenic ride on horseback. I have experienced the same problem (the shutting down of trail systems) with many of the ATV riding area's in the state. Most often, it ends up being a few isolated cases of "idiots" that ruin it for everyone. Here's my theory on it:

*A.* If you knowingly set up a hunting blind within 100 yards of a marked horseback riding trail..... you have no right to claim that a group of riders "ruined" your hunt because they kept riding past you!

*B.* If you ride your horse somewhere other than a marked trail, you have no right to defend yourself when a hunter yells at you for ruining his hunt! The trails are marked for a reason and we (myself included) need to stay on them.

Also, my family spends lots of time in the Pigeon River State Game area. For anybody unaware of this land, it is an area highly used by campers, hikers, horseback riders, hunters, etc... We have come across campsites on several occassions that were left a total mess by the previous visitors. We have cleaned up everything from food, trash, cans & bottles, car parts, and even dirty diapers! These are the type of people that will eventually ruin it for all of us.


----------



## mi_bassman

Is there conflict ? Yes...there is, if the horseback riders have 10
campsites, they want 20, if they get 20, they want 50 and so on.
There must be some sort of limits as to how many and where they 
are allowed to ride. Otherwise they interfere with the other users
of the forest. Why not accept the limits and be done with it, why
push for more ? AHH....its the elk...if there was no elk, would you
push so hard? Why not ride somewhere else? After all a ride is a ride, 
doesn't matter where. Is the PRCF the only place the the state to
ride a horse?


----------



## DANIEL MARK ZAPOLSKI

i have a problem with all you user's who pay no fee's what so ever. horse trails need to be maintained and guess who pays for that just like bike trails you people pay no user fees. sportsmen and sportswomen have been footing all the bills while you pay nothing. now if there was a horse trail fee/sticker and a bike trail fee/sticker maybe i would change my position. i pay for boat launch fee/stickers/hunting/fishing licenses. from what i have seen of horsemen/women and bikers in the woods and their attitudes i say close them all until they come up with a system that will pay for itself and not burden others with their costs. in other words you become your own entity, then and only then will i support such a bill.


----------



## MUDDY4LIFE

I also agree with the last post 100%..Im an avid ATVer and at times, see folks riding a horse on a trail that you got a free pass to ride from the MDNR..And when I come upon you, they tell me that IM the one that is suppost to pull over and shut my engine down until you and your horse get pass me [ that will be a cold day in hell :rant: ]

This is not right IMO and if you want to ride, you have to pay also.


----------



## Gabrielle

I'm not sure why people are forever claiming that hunting and fishing licenses pay for land. I believed that for years myself. 

What I have found out, is that money from mineral and oil leases funds the MDNR. In 2008, that was $67 Million dollars. Less then 1/3 of the funding comes from Camping Fees, hunting and fishing licenses. 

So far as conflict ... I agree with harpo1. And why not establish trails around perimeters of state game? I've also spoken with various hunters and sports enthusiasts. I hear that they WANT trails in many areas so that they can drag their kill rather than carry it. The trails become terribly overgrown. 

I've spoken with DNR tech too. He says he has worse problems with cars/trucks taking boats to boat launches not staying on 2-tracks. He feels that bikes are the worst of non-motorized. He gets aggravated from horses and other users breaking down dams and creating blow-outs. 

I do believe it's an educational process. I become concerned when I'm told mis-truths and when I am told my horseback riding is harming wildlife - sparrows, grasshoppers, grouse, etc. I'm really not sure how that occurs if I stay on 2-tracks that motorized vehicles use. 

So far as "fees"... if equestrians are targeted for fees, then so too must hikers and bikers; berry pickers and mushroom gatherers; kayakers and canoers. 

Equestrians put in thousands of hours every year working on trails and campgrounds. They pay or have donated material and equipment for trail repair. They call upon state or county agencies when there is a need for surveying or engineering to assure proper applications are used. 

Horses do not spread invasive species. There are six studies completed that prove they do not spread invasive species. Horses stomachs and intestines are much different than deer, cows, elk, sheep and goats. Horses do not eat weeds unless starving. They eat grass (hay). The heat in their intestinal system typically renders any seed useless for germination in the feces. 

And, I've met many, many people who both ride and hunt. In the west and appalachians, hunter use horses and pack animals routinely. 

I use a horse to get into the woods to enjoy nature because I have hardware in my leg and cannot walk long distances. There are others that use horses in the same manner. 

It's amazing how much land and how many miles of trail have been closed in the past 12 - 15 years to horses - and yet there is a 20% increase in the number of horses in Michigan. It's a huge economy that supports agriculture and big trucks; fences, gates, barns, and farm implements.


----------



## DANIEL MARK ZAPOLSKI

you found out from who,what, or where???? if you findings are correct and thats if, our 1/3 is a hell of a lot more than all your ZERO'S and i've been paying for over 45 years. you also address user fees in conjunction with if i have to they have to attitude (total refusal). so in a nutshell we're back to where i left off. you use and abuse yet you will pay nothing and let everbody else foot the bill for you. by the way the dnr doesn't want the horse trails and they have scientific data to counter anything that you bring forth. which brings to your 6 or so tests you claim you have that support evidence to the contary of the MDNR. also please provide that data for all to see. heresay is just that heresay, facts and data speak louder than any words. you also go on and state the horses are a booming industry in michigan thats great how many people does that one employ 
if you want to be a cowboy or cowgirl take mister ed out west and have a good time with their dollars not the michigan sportspersons, WE PAY OUR FEES PAY TO PLAY OR GO AWAY:coolgleam


----------



## griffondog

At the NRC meeting on Thursday the DNR claimed the feds were going to pull 25 million in money if this legislation passed. Since it effects lands purchased with PR funds, sportsmens uses come first. The feds have determind that the increased horse use is now effecting the users who the property was bought for.

So here are a couple questions that need to be answered.

Are the equestrian users going to pick up the 25 million if the feds pull our PR funds? Does the bill make provisions for the state pick up any lost PR funding?
Can you prove to me that PR money wont be withheld from the DNR if this bill passes?

Griff


----------



## DANIEL MARK ZAPOLSKI

Are the equestrian users going to pick up the 25 million if the feds pull our PR funds? Does the bill make provisions for the state pick up any lost PR funding?
Can you prove to me that PR money wont be withheld from the DNR if this bill passes?
the answer to all is a RESOUNDING NO


----------



## sullyxlh

> Are the equestrian users going to pick up the 25 million if the feds pull our PR funds


Hell I'd be happy if they just picked up their 25 million pounds of horse sh_t that'll be left on the trails.............


----------



## hungry hunter

this is bad legislation and should not go through. I hope they do the right thing and don't bow to the special interest group. horse riding in this day and age needs to be regulated just like any other activity. I think they need to be treated the same as orv's,they can have their own exclusive trails and along the side of public roads only.


----------



## Bucket-Back

Dog owners have to clean up after their dogs or face possible fines ,then *** do I have to step in horse***** walking from van to store in Amish country?And dog owners pay for a license and support businesses too.Also I don't have a dog or horse and step in both their stuff and thats BS.Also why do I have to get out of the horses way on 88thstreet in Newaygo when it is a road designed for motor vehicles(unplowed dirt road),that my tax dollars pay for.What the heck the horse has 4 wheel drive,get out of my way.Oh,and don't shoot your shotgun at that partridge cause you'll spook my horse.Is it you stinking or is it your horse,nevermind your horse looks clean.


----------



## k9wernet

Gabrielle said:


> I'm not sure why people are forever claiming that hunting and fishing licenses pay for land. I believed that for years myself.


Maybe it's the line printed on every DNR Game Area map that says "Hunter Monies Made This Area Possible"... maybe...

I don't think that EVERYONE who uses the resource needs to help pay for it (hikers, skiers, snowshoers). I do think if a set of trails is going to be established and maintained for a specific purpose (horseback riding, ORVs), it needs to be self-sufficient and user-funded. The idea of having horseback riders going where ever they please is just not an acceptable option.



DANIEL MARK ZAPOLSKI said:


> Are the equestrian users going to pick up the 25 million if the feds pull our PR funds? Does the bill make provisions for the state pick up any lost PR funding?


The "traditional use" wording of the proposal has been changed and it looks to me as if the DNR will have the ability to regulate the use by horse folks in a way that is least disturbing to fish and game users. That should prevent the loss of Federal Funds. I think I'd support it in its present form. 



Bucket-Back said:


> ... I don't have a dog or horse and step in both their stuff and thats BS...


Um, no sir, that's DS... or HS... but point taken!

KW


----------



## michi1

griffondog said:


> At the NRC meeting on Thursday the DNR claimed the feds were going to pull 25 million in money if this legislation passed. Since it effects lands purchased with PR funds, sportsmens uses come first. The feds have determind that the increased horse use is now effecting the users who the property was bought for.
> 
> So here are a couple questions that need to be answered.
> 
> Are the equestrian users going to pick up the 25 million if the feds pull our PR funds? Does the bill make provisions for the state pick up any lost PR funding?
> Can you prove to me that PR money wont be withheld from the DNR if this bill passes?
> 
> Griff


You've got to be joking , of the 118,000 inside the boundaries of the Pigeon River State Forest , approximately 105,000 acres belong to the public , of that , 12 acres approximately were acquired via Pitman-Roberson funds. The vast majority of the land was acquired through tax delinquent acquisition and money from the public . The notion that individuals who are involved with horseback riding don't own the fishing or hunting license is baloney.That land is just as much yours as it is mine and theirs. Remember the DNR use to get over 30 million from the state of Michigan general fund. Money years ago sent to the Department of Natural Resources budget was fungible , not isolated to one activity. When was the vast majority of the land acquired , decades ago when the money was fungible.

The DNR scrambled to come up with their own inventory of the endangered plant species in the PRSF and turned it over to the Feds' , this wasn't a study done by the Federal Fish and Wildlife service. They're just going off of work supposedly done by the Michigan DNR alleged trained professionals.

Here's the flaw with the garbage the state has developed. The state could mark off any sensitive areas to horseback riding and for others if they had to. The DNR now states they know where these isolated spots are at. What isn't being taken into consideration is that horseback riders can read signs about sensitive areas , the Elk & Whitetail deer can't.

With the current management plan in the Pigeon River which includes the reduction of wildlife habitat , in this case Aspen cuttings and regeneration , for the planting of Red Pines. That plan now puts the Elk & Whitetail in danger.

It's not the horseback riders that are the danger to the PRSF , it's the malnourished elk and deer in the area as reported this winter in some of the Northern Michigan newspapers.

If anyone remembers about the issues of Whitetail deer at the Huron Clinton Metropolitan Park Authority's Kensington Park. Whitetail deer will eat almost anything when they get near starvation mode.

I wonder what the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation would have to say that hundreds of thousands of dollars that they sent to be state of Michigan is not being used appropriately in the Pigeon River State Forest . Somebody give them a call and bring them up to date how their money is being wasted.

So if there is any alleged endangerment of sensitive floral in the PRSF it was cause by the ineptness DNR , NOT by any horseback riders.

On the question on the 25 million , if the Fed's care to make a decision on flawed studies , we'll see them in court.

By the way , I challenge anyone out there to find an area of public land the size of 118,000 acres that won't contain endangered sensitive plant life.

On this hogwash of " user conflicts ". Why don't we ban individuals using rivers for recreation that don't have a fishing license , that would be canoeist , kayakers and individuals using float tubes.

I'm sure some nut-job in the DNR could say the same thing for individuals who might be cross-country skiing or snowshoeing interfering with wintertime hunting activities like rabbit hunting or predator hunting .


----------



## DANIEL MARK ZAPOLSKI

On the question on the 25 million , if the Fed's care to make a decision on flawed studies , we'll see them in court.
i hope you have some very deep pockets, court isn't free.
as i see it, the arrogance of not even being willing to pay a user fee means you cannot muster the $$$$$$$$$$$ for the lawsuit. the cost of the lawsuit would cost more than all the user fees collected for a year for all the MR.ED'S
"pay to play" or "just go away"


----------



## mi_bassman

We aren't saying you can't use PRCF, We are saying there must be limits.
The horses are destructive, to the ground, the trees,the river, and the 
trails. They churn up the ground like rototillers, soil erosion. They chew
the bark off the trees, dead trees, no shade. They are medicated, its
passed in the waste and falls or is soaked into the ground and runs into
a blue ribbon trout stream. Then there's the problem with the waste and
all the insects (flyes). Anywhere else in Michigan they are called open 
fields, but in the PRCF,they are called Elk viewing areas. The turkey, bow,
and deer hunters, hunt the edges of the fields. The deer, turkey, elk, and
horseback riders all show up at the same time of day, in the spring, and
the fall.Imagine sitting there for hours waiting for a deer to show up and
here comes a bunch of horseback riders,talking ,maybe laughing, making
noise, makes for some really upset hunters and user conflict. Don't
ruin my hunt....stay on the marked trails. Limits on the numbers of riders
and where they ride. If you want to see the elk, do what the rest of us do.........WALK!!!


----------



## Gabrielle

DANIEL MARK ZAPOLSKI said:


> you found out from who,what, or where???? if you findings are correct and thats if, our 1/3 is a hell of a lot more than all your ZERO'S and i've been paying for over 45 years. you also address user fees in conjunction with if i have to they have to attitude (total refusal). so in a nutshell we're back to where i left off. you use and abuse yet you will pay nothing and let everbody else foot the bill for you. by the way the dnr doesn't want the horse trails and they have scientific data to counter anything that you bring forth. which brings to your 6 or so tests you claim you have that support evidence to the contary of the MDNR. also please provide that data for all to see. heresay is just that heresay, facts and data speak louder than any words. you also go on and state the horses are a booming industry in michigan thats great how many people does that one employ
> if you want to be a cowboy or cowgirl take mister ed out west and have a good time with their dollars not the michigan sportspersons, WE PAY OUR FEES PAY TO PLAY OR GO AWAY:coolgleam


Excuse me, but part of that 1/3 comes from CAMPING FEES. Equestrians pay a higher amount than others. 
Excuse me, but all the money from Mineral leases etc.? That could go towards reducing the state's deficet and then what would all the hunters do? 
excuse me, but many horse people ALSO hold fishing and hunting licenses. 
If you wanna hunt the big elk - go out to the Rockies where they live NATURALLY.. Not IMPORTED. 
Oh But Wait. You couldn't because you don't know how to RIDE A HORSE to get into the back country where the REAL hunters go. 

If you believe the propaganda that MUCC puts out, you would believe that they support the state of Michigan single-handedly.

I cannot post the full url in these, so you'll have to piece them back together. 

University of Wisconsin w w w .aerc.org / EnduranceNews_West_Weed_Study . pdf 


> However, no non-native weeds germinated from the hay, manure, or hoof debris samples placed on the trails at the five sites. While these results are relevant for many ecosystems in the eastern United States, it is
> unclear if horses are responsible for introducing non-native weeds in the western United States.​


From California: w w w. dominican.edu / dominicanews / weeds. html


> None of the plants identified are listed as noxious weeds by the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA).


 
Here's a list of weeds - and they are poisonous to horses, so horses won't eat them: w w w . extension. umn . edu/ horse/ components weedid . html 

I don't have time to dig up all the studies. One was particularly interesing. They used MIRACLE GROW on the manure to get things to germinate. Ohhhhkkkkaaaaay... that's a REAL nature study. 

The MDNR has no scientific data to back up what they do. If they did, they wouldn't be constantly raising the price of things which only makes FEWER people buy those things (licenses and permits). 

The $25 million dollars that MUCC keeps sounding off about the state losing is because the STATE has mismanaged the land and how it pays the taxes on it and how it administers it. Ask your county or township tax collector if the MNDR paid their 2008 taxes. If they did, ask how late they paid them. How much does that cost in late fees and interest? The PR funding says that horseback riding is an acceptable secondary use of Federally funded land. But MUCC is crying wolf, wolf, wolf, and the sky is falling. (MUCC has also seen its membership decline greatly in recent months.) 

But when all is said and done. This is about ONE, NON-MOTORIZED GROUP being targeted. Divide and conquer. That's the DNR's motto. Pit one group against another. 

Where I live, the hunters can't get back into the land because there are NO trails. They wish the horseback riders could get out there to MAKE trails. It would help them so that they can drag out their kill instead of having to carry it. 

I bet the people that buy fishing licenses wish those who used canoes and kayaks would pay too. Is that what you think? Everytime they go into and out of the water; everytime they walk around in the river or creek or lake, they disturb sediment that settles on eggs and nesting places. The DNR claims that the horses do this. But apparently, elk and deer and '***** don't? 

It's okay if you don't like horses. But to act like you are more priveleged than someone else is not right. I cannot walk long distances. I have a good deal of hardware in my right leg. How can anyone use a motorized wheelchair? They are not allowed. A horse is much more practical and will even "alert" on wildlife much like a hunting dog. 

If your hunting license fees are so high, why not stand up for your rights? Why keep going along with what the DNR is doing? They lose 10 million dollars and ask the government to bail them out. then, OH gee, here it is in our rainy-day fund. ha ha ha. 

They say they are broke but they want to hand out tents and chairs and have rangers show people how to camp. ??? They close campgrounds that could bring in money.


----------



## Gabrielle

mi_bassman said:


> Is there conflict ? Yes...there is, if the horseback riders have 10
> campsites, they want 20, if they get 20, they want 50 and so on.
> There must be some sort of limits as to how many and where they
> are allowed to ride. Otherwise they interfere with the other users
> of the forest. Why not accept the limits and be done with it, why
> push for more ? AHH....its the elk...if there was no elk, would you
> push so hard? Why not ride somewhere else? After all a ride is a ride,
> doesn't matter where. Is the PRCF the only place the the state to
> ride a horse?


No the PRCF is not the only place to ride in Michigan. But it IS the only place to ride and see Elk. No. Any ride is not a ride. One fishing hole is not the same as another; one hunting area is not the same as another. 

Perhaps the reasons that equestrians want more campsites is because there are more and more of us? Spending more and more of our money? 
Yes, as hunting licenses decrease, horses increase. Up 20% in 10 years. 

Or maybe it's because equestrians keep losing other areas to ride and camp? Sorry but a little 7 or 8 mile trail is nothing. Yes, we like to ride 15 - 25 miles in a single day. 
Not much different than snowmobilers or ATVers. 

Amazing that in New York State, they recently opened up another 500 miles of "wheeler" trails in ONE county. More than 500 miles of ATV trails. Within the Adirondack Game Preserve... 6 million protected acres. Isn't that something? All it takes is a vehicle registration.


----------



## Gabrielle

DANIEL MARK ZAPOLSKI said:


> On the question on the 25 million , if the Fed's care to make a decision on flawed studies , we'll see them in court.
> i hope you have some very deep pockets, court isn't free.
> as i see it, the arrogance of not even being willing to pay a user fee means you cannot muster the $$$$$$$$$$$ for the lawsuit. the cost of the lawsuit would cost more than all the user fees collected for a year for all the MR.ED'S
> "pay to play" or "just go away"


We have attorneys amongst our group that are working with us already ... guess what? They are hunters and horsemen and outdoor sportsmen and women. 


It's not arrogance of not wanting to pay. That's the part you aren't getting. 

If we pay to play, then everyone should pay to play. Bikes, berry pickers, mushroomers, canoers and kayakers, hikers, cross-country skiers, dog mushers, showshoers, people with strollers, etc. etc. etc. Is that how you want it? So why not gather up against the agency that seeks this? Why not join with others who are fighting against too much government? Do you LIKE to pay higher and higher fees and taxes? 

The MDNR has closed off so much land to users its very sad. The more they close off, the more concentrated users are within smaller areas. But the DNR keeps buying more land. And when they buy more land, they have to pay more taxes and more maintenance. And the more they spend on land, the less there is for improvements - such as planting feed plots; fixing bridges; fixing state parks and keeping campgrounds open. Increasing hatcheries and fish species. Educating the public.


----------



## DANIEL MARK ZAPOLSKI

However, no non-native weeds germinated from the hay, manure, or hoof debris samples placed on the trails at the five sites. While these results are relevant for many ecosystems in the eastern United States, it is
unclear if horses are responsible for introducing non-native weeds in the western United States 
you call this proof **UNCLEAR**
as far as riding horses goes i was riding and breaking colts in 1967 probably before you were born. not to mention helping run a riding stables. would you like something to make your foot taste a little better.:lol:
i also note none of those infamous studies were done here in michigan were the issue is at hand. 
as far as wishing goes you're the one wishing. i could care less about trails to get back into the bush. there is absolutely nowhere where i cannot get to if i want. i also have 2 bad knees one of which has had to operations and still not right and the other still in need of one. then i also have had 2 operations on my left arm lets see, ulnar nerve damage, torn rotator cuff, tendons. i still cover plenty of the woods up north, 14,000 acres of private and then across the street i have another 9 square miles which i frequent quite often. IT MAY TAKE ME LONGER THAN WHEN I WAS YOUNG BUT I DON'T CARE!
so as far as MR. ED GOES you can either pay to play or just go away.
ANNIE UP TO GIDDY UP:lol:


----------



## michi1

mi_bassman said:


> Public land...quit making a mess on it. Take the poop home, glue the bark
> back on the trees, rake and seed all the tore up ground to stop the
> erosion, don't chase the elk around like its a sport, stay on the marked
> trails, don't water the horse in the river, use a bucket. I don't want to
> see you, i don't want to smell a horse or its waste, and i don't want to
> sit for hours waiting to see an elk only to have some horseback riders
> that can't or won't go by the rules mess things up. NOWAY!!! If you
> can't respect the land and the other users, maybe there shouldn't be
> any horses at all. Public land ....yes, put up with your s_ _t.... no !!!


Horses don't have tree bark as part of their diet you can look at Whitetail Deer and Elk who are in starvation mode , thanks to the mismanagement 
of restricting food plots and Aspen cuttings in the PRSF.

So you don't like the smell of horses or their dropping ... here's the solution , the Dnr will come out soon with their official brand.

http://z.about.com/d/familycrafts/1/0/V/o/1/ct2-27_clothespin.jpg


----------



## DANIEL MARK ZAPOLSKI

Horse owners don't make it a habit of buying low-quality hay 
excellent, its not a habit but we do it to save some money that we don't want to pay for use of trails and maintenance of those trails. it all sounds like greed to me. 
i really like the part about an 8 billion dollar industry--would that be glue:lol: hay thats a pund if you want endless trail rides start in your backyard and head south turn right at the desert cross that little baby and then head south through mexico i am sure they can make use of your horse dung then take it to the dead end and give MR. ED A BATH


----------



## mi_bassman

Arrogant, on your side of the coin, you bring nothing good to the table, 
just your own self serving interests. We pay taxes therefore we should
be allowed to do whatever we please....p_ _s on everyone else. My
side of the coin, stop all the destruction and disturbance caused by
allowing horses. We pay taxes, we shouldn't have to put up with the
horses they only benifit the owners. Good argument...2 sides, and 
neither wants to budge.


----------



## mi_bassman

Arrogant, on your side of the coin, you bring nothing good to the table, 
just your own self serving interests. We pay taxes therefore we should
be allowed to do whatever we please....p_ _s on everyone else. My
side of the coin, stop all the destruction and disturbance caused by
allowing horses. We pay taxes, we shouldn't have to put up with the
horses they only benifit the owners. Good argument...2 sides, and 
neither wants to budge.


----------



## MOODMagazine

brdhntr:

Again, let's try and bring some actual fact-based discussion to this. You can't just make things up to suit your purpose. Why wasn't MUCC at the table talking about resolution?

We have been and will continue to be.


----------



## brdhntr

michi1 said:


> Brdhunter , Re-read the letter , he goes outside the spectrum of Pitman Robinson finds and mentions license money's and land management.... I read it as NOT just P R acquired lands. He does say " strongly suggest " that the DNR get the legislation changed. Call a spade a spade , thats telling the Mi DNR what to do.


P-R funds cover license fees, as well. For every license sold, the MDNR gets a matching fund from the feds, if the MDNR don't play by the fed rules, they lose the money, which causes them to not be able to support the land. He strongly suggests a change so the the MDNR is not found in violation and MI does not lose the funding. If the horse people wish to pick up the tab, then by all means, criticize the feds for trying to help MI keep much needed funds.


Regarding the riding off the trails, that folks are complaining about. There was never a rule requiring horses stay on trails(at least that I am aware of, if there was, please post a source). Instead of instituting one to address the problem, the DNR closed all access. If they had merely limited riding to existing trails and 2 tracks (as the legislation is trying to do) there would have not been an issue. Now if the horse folks had continued to ride off trail, then there is grounds for closing trails, but that never happened.


----------



## brdhntr

MOODMagazine said:


> brdhntr:
> 
> Again, let's try and bring some actual fact-based discussion to this. You can't just make things up to suit your purpose. Why wasn't MUCC at the table talking about resolution?
> 
> We have been and will continue to be.


From the explanation letter MUCC released:
Lastly, there are alternative compromises that both horseback riders and the sportsmen community can and should agree on without legislating land use mandates and putting Michigan at risk of losing much-needed federal resource management funding. MUCC prefers a compromise that can benefit all users  perhaps restricting backcountry riding in the months of September through November where the potential for disrupting game and ruining a hunters experience is much greater. Perhaps there are similar landscapes that would be more attractive to horseback riders that are not complicated by fragments purchased with game and fish dollars.
end quote

The horse folks tried that route before pushing for legislation, as well as Sheltrown and other legislators prompted the MDNR to reconsider. The MDNR refused to budge, now we have this bill and the MUCC wants the stake holders to go back to the folks who refused to work with them. I know that the person from the horse riders side who was a part of the orginal decision was led to believe that they would be allowed more trail access and the horse folks were in agreement, then the final decision basically took them by surprise and was NOT anwhere near what they were led to believe would happen. They understood they would be restricted, but the decision pretty much locked them out.

Wasn't MUCC, also, involved with the horse issue regarding field trials? That would mean they should be aware that there was a ruling that horseback riding on P-R lands was not a violation.

Was MUCC involved with the original Pigeon River Task Force that made this decision? I know at least one rep from an MUCC affiliate was. That person was, also, very vocally against any horse riding. Now the MUCC is at the table asking its members to oppose the bill. 

A whole lot of too little, too late, IMHO. Sorry if my take doesn't agree with yours, being inside the org, I'm sure you see it differently.


----------



## Ranger Ray

MOODMagazine said:


> You stated "The PR funding says that horseback riding is an acceptable secondary use of Federally funded land." That's absolutely false. The Feds' letter to the DNR warned of the loss of funding because riding horses on lands purchased by fish and game funds is NOT an acceptable use.


Doesn't appear to be false. 



> *(2) States may allow recreational activities and related facilities that are
> not fish or wildlife-dependent (e.g. bicycling, swimming, rock climbing,
> kennels, stables, horseback riding) if they determine that the activities
> will not interfere with the purpose for which they acquired, developed,
> or are managing the land.*


Did MUCC miss this? Or did they just take a side without investigating the actual wording. Usually happens when one takes a stance based on a already predetermined notion.


----------



## MOODMagazine

*(2) States may allow recreational activities and related facilities that are
not fish or wildlife-dependent (e.g. bicycling, swimming, rock climbing,
kennels, stables, horseback riding) if they determine that the activities
will not interfere with the purpose for which they acquired, developed,
or are managing the land.
*
Not sure where the confusion is. It's pretty clear -- "if they determine that the activities will not interfere with the purpose for which they acquired, developed or are managing the land."

This bill would create activities that interfere with that purpose.


----------



## Gabrielle

> as far as riding horses goes i was riding and breaking colts in 1967 probably before you were born. not to mention helping run a riding stables. would you like something to make your foot taste a little better


Nope Sorry Dude... I'm older than the hills... as though that makes any difference what-so-ever. 
And, my foot tastes just fine. :lol:


----------



## Swedish Pimple

brdhntr said:


> From the explanation letter MUCC released:
> Lastly, there are alternative compromises that both horseback riders and the sportsmen community can and should agree on without legislating land use mandates and putting Michigan at risk of losing much-needed federal resource management funding. MUCC prefers a compromise that can benefit all users  perhaps restricting backcountry riding in the months of September through November where the potential for disrupting game and ruining a hunters experience is much greater. Perhaps there are similar landscapes that would be more attractive to horseback riders that are not complicated by fragments purchased with game and fish dollars.
> end quote
> 
> The horse folks tried that route before pushing for legislation, as well as Sheltrown and other legislators prompted the MDNR to reconsider. The MDNR refused to budge, now we have this bill and the MUCC wants the stake holders to go back to the folks who refused to work with them. I know that the person from the horse riders side who was a part of the orginal decision was led to believe that they would be allowed more trail access and the horse folks were in agreement, then the final decision basically took them by surprise and was NOT anwhere near what they were led to believe would happen. They understood they would be restricted, but the decision pretty much locked them out.
> 
> Wasn't MUCC, also, involved with the horse issue regarding field trials? That would mean they should be aware that there was a ruling that horseback riding on P-R lands was not a violation.
> 
> Was MUCC involved with the original Pigeon River Task Force that made this decision? I know at least one rep from an MUCC affiliate was. That person was, also, very vocally against any horse riding. Now the MUCC is at the table asking its members to oppose the bill.
> 
> A whole lot of too little, too late, IMHO. Sorry if my take doesn't agree with yours, being inside the org, I'm sure you see it differently.


MUCC is asking its members to oppose the bill, NOT because they are trying to suppress horseback riders. Somehow this lie escalated to the top of the bill proponents' arguments because they need a target - so they attack an organization's credibility based on lies and misrepresents it's actual position. MUCC's position is that this bill is BAD PUBLIC POLICY. It allows the legislature to define science as it sees fit and it puts the state at risk of diverting $25 million in sportsmen tax payments to other states.

If you knew the real truth you'd know that MUCC has been 100 percent open with the bill sponsor, bill proponents, and legislative staff about it's position on this bill and has had candid discussions about how to resolve the issue without enacting a non-scientific legislative mandate that kicks $25 million to the curb for ONE user group. So it have tried rendering a solution, and will continue to.

Other trail users and non-sportsmen across the state have actually thanked MUCC for sticking to facts and science in its position because local compromise and scientific management has lead to solutions that work for all users - hunters, bikers, horseback riders, etc. in different parts of the U.P. and lower Michigan. If this bill passes, those solutions go by the wayside because the legislature carved out one statewide land management law for one user group. 

If we can kick politics out of land and trail management and look at this issue from a broader, scientific perspective, MUCC is willing to work on a compromise based on SCIENCE - in fact, it has been trying to do that since HB 4610 was introduced and will continue to.


----------



## DANIEL MARK ZAPOLSKI

MOODMagazine said:


> *(2) States may allow recreational activities and related facilities that are
> not fish or wildlife-dependent (e.g. bicycling, swimming, rock climbing,
> kennels, stables, horseback riding) if they determine that the activities
> will not interfere with the purpose for which they acquired, developed,
> or are managing the land.
> *
> Not sure where the confusion is. It's pretty clear -- "if they determine that the activities will not interfere with the purpose for which they acquired, developed or are managing the land."
> 
> This bill would create activities that interfere with that purpose.


i would say that they the MDNR has determined that it does indeed interfere with the purpose for which the land was purchased and that would be ----a little drum roll please ******HUNTING AND FISHING.
time for a little english comprehension class, class will begin in 1 hour in room 213:lol:


----------



## Gabrielle

MOODMagazine said:


> *(2) States may allow recreational activities and related facilities that are*
> *not fish or wildlife-dependent (e.g. bicycling, swimming, rock climbing,*
> *kennels, stables, horseback riding) if they determine that the activities*
> *will not interfere with the purpose for which they acquired, developed,*
> *or are managing the land.*
> 
> Not sure where the confusion is. It's pretty clear -- "if they determine that the activities will not interfere with the purpose for which they acquired, developed or are managing the land."
> 
> This bill would create activities that interfere with that purpose.


How can the bill create activities that interfere with land use when a large portion of the land was tax-reverted or purchased with General Funds? Who says what the intent of the land use is? 
After decades of multi-user use, there is magically a new purpose? 
How do they do that? with scientific studies? If so. bring them on please. 

RE: MUCC. During testimony on the 28th of April by David Nyberg, MUCC claimed 40,000 members. However, documents that I have seen show less than that number. And so what? There are 80,000 recreational horseback riders in Michigan. I don't know how many bike riders there are. 

If there are no police on the roads, people will drive however they will. That doesn't mean the roads have to be closed. 

I think that there are all sorts of land users are very trashy too. I've ridden along rivers and lakes and found empty styrofoam bait boxes and broken fishing lures and poles. I've found empty shotgun shell casings. I've found beer cans and bottles. I've seen raccoon feces and deer carcasses that stink far worse than any manure. 

I won't convince anyone that is posting to change their minds. 

I am curious as to where the $25 million figure came from ....


----------



## DANIEL MARK ZAPOLSKI

Who says what the intent of the land use is?
its become quite apparent that you don't understand michigan goverment. the realm you speak of falls directly under the MDNR, THEY ARE ALSO THE PEOPLE SAYING nooooooooooooooooooo! to you. 1/2 HOUR TO THAT ENGLISH COMPREHENSION CLASS ROOM 213 ----SEATS AVAILABLE:lol:


----------



## Ranger Ray

MOODMagazine said:


> *(2) States may allow recreational activities and related facilities that are*
> *not fish or wildlife-dependent (e.g. bicycling, swimming, rock climbing,*
> *kennels, stables, horseback riding) if they determine that the activities*
> *will not interfere with the purpose for which they acquired, developed,*
> *or are managing the land.*
> 
> Not sure where the confusion is. It's pretty clear -- "if they determine that the activities will not interfere with the purpose for which they acquired, developed or are managing the land."
> 
> This bill would create activities that interfere with that purpose.


Ah, a change in the stance of the DNR. Based on? Science? Opinion? Gee how convenient. No doubt based on someones prejudice. I knew the response before anyone gave it. My reading comprehension is just fine, thank you. Brings new meaning to the saying, "Don't piss down my back and tell me its raining." Seems to be a habit with the leadership we have at this time. Like someone else stated, show the science, not opinion.


----------



## mi_bassman

Michi1....tie your horse up to a tree for a while....he will GIRDLE,
chew the bark from the tree in a ring around the tree, result, 
dead tree. And no I'm not going to use a clothes pin so I don't
smell your horse or It's waste...I've got a better idea, leave the
horse at home, problem solved, no flys, no poop, no GIRDLED
trees, no tore up ground, no horse meds washed into the river
by the rain, no upset hunters, no upset elk veiwers.


----------



## Ranger Ray

I love this the best.



> Dear Ms ,Humpries:
> At the request of your wildlife division, we have reviewed a bill, introduced in the Michigan House of Representatives ( HB 4610 ) , which would require the Michigan Department of natural resources to " preserve and facilitate the continued use and access on all state owned land where there is a historical tradition of use of pack and saddle animals ".


What did the letter state? 

State: Are we in violation of federal law.

Feds: Its yours to interpret.

State: Well I think we are.

Fed: Its yours to interpret?

State: No I mean we really are in violation.

Fed: Ok, You may be.

State: Can you put that in writing?

Fed: Huh?

State: Pretty please.

Fed: OK.

State: Yes!


----------



## Gabrielle

mi_bassman said:


> Michi1....tie your horse up to a tree for a while....he will GIRDLE,
> chew the bark from the tree in a ring around the tree, result,
> dead tree. And no I'm not going to use a clothes pin so I don't
> smell your horse or It's waste...I've got a better idea, leave the
> horse at home, problem solved, no flys, no poop, no GIRDLED
> trees, no tore up ground, no horse meds washed into the river
> by the rain, no upset hunters, no upset elk veiwers.


 
I don't know of anyone that ties their horse to a tree. Typically, tree saver webbing, picket line, then tie to the picket line. 

How much damage do tree stands and cleats to climb a tree cause? 
And are you going to tell me that every hunter buries his/her own *****? yeah right. 

Horse meds.. that is REALLY Stretching it. Really. And there's NO gasoline or oil that leaks from motor boats either, is there? Oh, and of course, the logging trucks and equipment never leak any hydraulic fluids or oil or diesel either do they? And they don't tear up the ground do they? 
I used to work for a logging company - back when what's his name was running a stable. 

Well hunters. Governor Jenny has accepted 9.5 million dollars from Uncle Sam for your woods. Got to protect that Kirkland warbler from all you hunters. Good luck with that one. 

Too bad some of you can't play nice and seek the support of other users. All the paid lobbyists of sportsmen groups and fees just keep going up and up. tsk tsk tsk.


----------



## Gabrielle

OH MY GOSH... who knew?? 

And.. read about how they change the ground from fungal (for shrooms) to bacterial!!! bad for shrooms... BAN THE ANGLERS !!! :fish2: 

See "Outdoor News" Night Crawler Menace thread # 282933

Please don't leave your unused worms behind. ... they smell really badly (where's the clothespin emoticon?) :sad: and they destroy the ground where trees should grow. oh nnooooo... Mr Bill.....  oh whoops. that should be ohhh nnoooo Ms Becky.... :tdo12:


----------



## michi1

Ranger Ray said:


> I love this the best.
> 
> 
> 
> What did the letter state?
> 
> State: Are we in violation of federal law.
> 
> Feds: Its yours to interpret.
> 
> State: Well I think we are.
> 
> Fed: Its yours to interpret?
> 
> State: No I mean we really are in violation.
> 
> Fed: Ok, You may be.
> 
> State: Can you put that in writing?
> 
> Fed: Huh?
> 
> State: Pretty please.
> 
> Fed: OK.
> 
> State: Yes!


Nice one Ray , I'll bet your closer to the truth then anyone with that post.


----------



## MOODMagazine

Gabrielle: Those numbers represent excise taxes paid ONLY by those who buy hunting and fishing related items. NOT magazines. NOT payments to any lobby groups. Higher licenses? What state are you talking about? Michigan hasn't raised their hunting/fishing fees in years. Have you ever even purchased a hunting or fishing license? Have you put any money whatsoever into the resource you're trying to legislate for those that have? 

The bottom line is that it's sportsman's money that pays for the management, maintenance and access to public lands. It doesn't matter if it's one acre -- MUCC will work to ensure that the interests of those who fund, care for and ensure wise, sustainable use are protected. The fact that you continue to insist that your group deserves more than another doesn't make it right or change anything. Again, you're certainly free to your opinion. But try to stick to facts and not make things up to suit your argument. The issue is important to many people -- they deserve to have accurate information. Talking in rumors is fine for the coffee shop. But if you're going to try to be involved in state legislation that jeopardizes federal funding for users that have earned it, that supercedes local management plans that people spent years developing and satisfies one self-focused agenda, leave the rumors at home. I know exactly who MUCC represents -- the rumors, well, that's all that they are. When people run out of true, fact-based arguments they resort to rumors. Or calling people liars. It's the easy way out but extremely unproductive. We are 100 percent able and willing to stand behind our reasons with facts and we will continue to work with the legislature to find a solution that makes sense. 

michi1: General Fund dollars are gone. The only group paying its way are the hunters and anglers. ATV riders purchase permits, snowmobilers purchase permits as well.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service brought up the point that funding would be in jeopardy. Not sure why folks continue to ignore that or say it's something MUCC made up -- or anyone else for that matter. That's lunacy.


----------



## michi1

MOODMagazine said:


> Gabrielle: Those numbers represent excise taxes paid ONLY by those who buy hunting and fishing related items. NOT magazines. NOT payments to any lobby groups. Higher licenses? What state are you talking about? Michigan hasn't raised their hunting/fishing fees in years. Have you ever even purchased a hunting or fishing license? Have you put any money whatsoever into the resource you're trying to legislate for those that have?
> 
> The bottom line is that it's sportsman's money that pays for the management, maintenance and access to public lands. It doesn't matter if it's one acre -- MUCC will work to ensure that the interests of those who fund, care for and ensure wise, sustainable use are protected. The fact that you continue to insist that your group deserves more than another doesn't make it right or change anything. Again, you're certainly free to your opinion. But try to stick to facts and not make things up to suit your argument. The issue is important to many people -- they deserve to have accurate information. Talking in rumors is fine for the coffee shop. But if you're going to try to be involved in state legislation that jeopardizes federal funding for users that have earned it, that supercedes local management plans that people spent years developing and satisfies one self-focused agenda, leave the rumors at home. I know exactly who MUCC represents -- the rumors, well, that's all that they are. When people run out of true, fact-based arguments they resort to rumors. Or calling people liars. It's the easy way out but extremely unproductive. We are 100 percent able and willing to stand behind our reasons with facts and we will continue to work with the legislature to find a solution that makes sense.
> 
> michi1: General Fund dollars are gone. The only group paying its way are the hunters and anglers. ATV riders purchase permits, snowmobilers purchase permits as well.
> 
> The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service brought up the point that funding would be in jeopardy. Not sure why folks continue to ignore that or say it's something MUCC made up -- or anyone else for that matter. That's lunacy.


This can't be Tony from the magazine , Tony isn't that stupid.
The General fund monies have been pumped into the DNR ( Department of Conservation ) for decades ... Go back and read what I posted . Also on the DNR website the latest info they posted is that 8% of their funding is General Funding.
Be sure to read where they get funds from gasoline sales and timber sales... Those timber sales belong to all the pepole , and are use in forest management --- Like the Pigeon River State Forest , Sorry " Tony " , MUCC caught in another lie.

http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7-153-10366-30397--,00.html

Maybe you buy the Becky Lies .

http://www.record-eagle.com/local/local_story_105063045.html



Lets go with lie # 2 , The Pittman Robertson excise tax payers. You state it's anglers and hunters who pay ... LIE. Take the excise tax on Hand Guns , Shotguns , Rifles & all the ammo. You never have to hunt , but you still pay the excise tax. Try skeet & trap shooters , target shooters , Sporting Clays or just the buying of guns and ammo for self protection. By the way , call up a few sporting goods stores and ask them how's ammo sales . A lot of semi-auto handgun ammo is leaving the stores , but you rarely if ever see a semi auto hand being used in a hunting situation.

Here's the Texas state government about the Pittman Robertson taxes.

http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/huntwild/wild/funding/


----------



## DANIEL MARK ZAPOLSKI

General Fund dollars are gone. The only group paying its way are the hunters and anglers. ATV riders purchase permits, snowmobilers purchase permits as well.
odd thing here is i don't see HORSE TRAIL PERMITor for that matter bike trail permit
JUST PAY TO PLAY OR GO AWAY


----------



## brisco

*Finally I'm back! (Computer problems held me up).*
*[/COLOR]* 
*Where to start?*
*1. Money -- 25 million at risk. From what we've learned so far it doesn't seem the least bit likely. Whats more - we horsemen bring in $$$ and spend it in Michigan.*
*2. Pay fees -- we'd be the only non-motorized users to pay user fees. Mind you, many of us also pay hunting & fishing license fees. What's more - nobody is maintaining our trails as far as I can tell. What work is done on trails is done by us voluntarily. Our camps are without any improvements exept outhouses and sometimes a well (often if not always at MTRA expense). Sometimes there are old old picnic tables and fire rings. I'm not speaking specifically of Pigeon River but of trails I've used around Michigan generally.*
*3. Right - we do need more than 10 sites for camping because there are lots of us who wish to camp and ride! Fact - the more sites there are, the less density. Less density of use - less "damage". Whats more, less damage to trees will occur where poles are provided in the shade of trees. Some places have these. Who put them in? I don't know but someone could tell us. I'm guessing the Mich Trail Riders?*
*4. Elk? Yes, elk are fun to view. However, the trails around the Pigeon are not the only trails that have been extensively affected by new restrictions. The trend is statewide.*
*5. Horse manure. Manure can be managed at camp sites. We have learned to scatter the manure so it can dry and decay - some still pile it up. This is a matter of education. As someone said above - we can read and learn. On trails, the manure gets walked over and scattered pretty well as it is.*
*6. The biggest difference between hunters/fishers and horseback riders regarding licensing fees may be this: hunters & fishermen intend to TAKE something out of the great public outdoors. Riders intend only to enjoy and leave with what they brought. We aren't removing anything.*
*7. Why must we have conflict? Horses and hunters arrived in North America about the same time. We want to preserve and protect our public lands. We have largely different seasons of use. *
*8. We aren't going away. We are to stay and we intend to preserve and protect our children/grand children's rights to ride as well. There will be times when hunters/fishermen/dog trainers/hikers/ATV users/snowmobilers etc . . . will want our support for legal use of land and resources as well. I suggest we make an alliance as friends with some common interests.*

*More later.*


----------



## DANIEL MARK ZAPOLSKI

More later.*
thats alright, that was enough ***HYPERBOLE*** for a life time.
you leave nothing what do you call all that damage and manure
ANTE UP TO GIDDY UP


----------



## MOODMagazine

michi1 -- You're right. I'm not that stupid. Which is why you're not going to be able to pull much over on me. General fund money has decreased every year and is now at 8 percent. Where does that other 92 percent come from. And that 8 percent will continue to decline. So each year, it's those who pay license fees and user fees that fund the Department. And without PR, DJ and other federal funds NO ONE pays a dime for public land management, access improvement, etc. 92 percent of the funding comes from the hunting/angling community as well as ORV permits, etc. So when legislation pops up that attempts to overrule science-based management and jeopardize funding and access by those who foot the bill, MUCC -- as it should -- tends to get a bit interested.

Brisco has it dead on -- there needs to be an alliance of common interest. That's what MUCC has said all along. It's not an anti-horse movement in any way. There simply needs to be a better solution becuase this bill, as written, is not a solution at all.


----------



## mi_bassman

We are not saying you can't use the PRCF, we are just saying keep it
as wild as it can be in the lower 1/2, and walk in. The elk look the 
same on foot as they do on horseback. Then you can walk back to
your car, drive home and ride your horse. No need to torture the
poor horse with that long, loud trailer ride. The argument that we
pay taxes, we should be able to have a hosreback riding free for
all, is weak. We all pay taxes!! You don't bring anything positive,
only destruction and distrubance, the ole D&D. OK....so you spend
some money, we all do that. What else ya got? Tore up ground,
dead trees, horse waste, and all the other users, mad as hell and
on the celly to the DNR. It's just not working out to well.


----------



## Gabrielle

Thank you again Michi1 for reminding these folks that not everyone that has a weapon uses it to hunt. Ask all those wonderful folks in Detroit!!


----------



## Ranger Ray

Well, there seems to be a failure to communicate. The MUCC now seeking mutual ground is a good thing. Better late than never. Maybe they should have been seeking this while the horsemen were losing the right to ride, not after they received the ear of the legislature. Funny how that works. Anyway, compromise comes about by what is happening and hopefully everyone gets and gives a little. Still would like to see this science I keep hearing about.


----------



## Gabrielle

MOODMagazine said:


> michi1 -- You're right. I'm not that stupid. Which is why you're not going to be able to pull much over on me. General fund money has decreased every year and is now at 8 percent. Where does that other 92 percent come from. And that 8 percent will continue to decline. So each year, it's those who pay license fees and user fees that fund the Department. And without PR, DJ and other federal funds NO ONE pays a dime for public land management, access improvement, etc. 92 percent of the funding comes from the hunting/angling community as well as ORV permits, etc. So when legislation pops up that attempts to overrule science-based management and jeopardize funding and access by those who foot the bill, MUCC -- as it should -- tends to get a bit interested.
> 
> Brisco has it dead on -- there needs to be an alliance of common interest. That's what MUCC has said all along. It's not an anti-horse movement in any way. There simply needs to be a better solution becuase this bill, as written, is not a solution at all.


So why weren't equestrians represented in all the PRCAC meetings? Why weren't mountain bikers represented? Dave Smethurst tried to represent those other users and was shut down. How can MUCC say they "tried" if they wouldn't agree to a 1-year moratorium to do further investigation? 

MOOD - youare not comprehending.. you must have missed DMZ's reading comprehension class. 

PS Lovejoy started back in 1919 before P-R of 1937. LAND WAS BOUGHT BEFORE PITTMAN ROBERTSON. LAND WAS DONATED WITHOUT P-R MONEY. LAND WAS TAX REVERTED AND NO P-R MONEY WAS USED. ONLY 11.75 ACRES IN Pigeon River State forest 118,000 were BOUGHT with P-R money. However, the DNR chose to use SOME P-R money to administer the property. The mineral and oil lease money has paid for maintenance and taxes MORE than P-R / D-J funds did. 

All users want to be part of the solution. No member of the Michigan Horse Council was on the commission. No member of ANY horse or bike or dog group were on the commission during discussions of change. So how can MUCC claim that


> We're not excluding the horse riders. We're simply looking out for issues that impair equal access, set extremely dangerous precedent with bad public policy and allow exclusionary situations on public lands.


And, please provide us with the SCIENTIFIC STUDIES that were done to support the changed management plan. 

And. 92 percent of the funding DOES NOT COME FROM HUNTING AND FISHING GENERATED MONEY.


> MOOD Wrote: Where does that other 92 percent come from. And that 8 percent will continue to decline. So each year, it's those who pay license fees and user fees that fund the Department. And without PR, DJ and other federal funds NO ONE pays a dime for public land management, access improvement, etc. 92 percent of the funding comes from the hunting/angling community as well as ORV permits, etc.


 THAT IS AN OUTRIGHT LIE. 

IT COMES FROM THE MINERAL AND OIL LEASES MONEY $67 Million in 2008. compared to $25 million from P-R/D-J money that MUCC claims and I still can't find all the facts on. All I have found is less than $11 million. Can you provide me the source of your data? 

IT COMES FROM ALL USER CAMPING FEES. Equestrians pay $20, people pay $15. 

IT COMES FROM PASSES that people pay to use state parks. 

It Comes from sales tax on gasoline. 

I think the way to do it, is for groups to go out into the area and figure out where trails could go, where camping could be that would be mutually agreeable. Maybe there are sites that should be closed during hunting seasons or large game seasons or firearms seasons. 
But MORE places rather then LESS will mean less impact. 

The Michigan Trail Riders recently did some incredible work on the trails and access places to a river. They used materials donated by Consumers Energy. The access place helps avoid erosion not just from horses and deer, but from people using canoes and kayaks. 

No. I am not a hunter, but I enjoy the outdoors. I spend money in Cabela's & Bass Pro Shops, Dunhams (a michigan-based sporting goods store), TSC and many other places. I used to fish in the streams and brooks in Northern NY and on the lake where I grew up. I have done surf-casting off Long Island and seen the damage from oil blobs on the gulf coast beaches of Texas. I've witnessed Lake Ontario when it was so dense with green **** I don't know how anything survived in it. The years of carp killing anything decent in the Great Lakes.


----------



## mi_bassman

Ok...here's an idea, I will bring my chainsaw and rototiller to your house
this weekend. I'll take down a tree or 2, churn up the yard, use the
bathroom (not responsible for clean-up or repainting) and pee all over
the shrubs. Then if you are happy with that, I'll come back every
weekend, maybe even bring some friends....You wouldn't want to 
put up with my stuff but you want me to put up with your stuff.
I know the PRCF isn't my yard but after more than 40 years 
sometimes it feels like it. So if there's any takers on my offer, let
me know, I'm going out to gas up the saw.


----------



## Gabrielle

Will you bring your rifle too? I have about a dozen squirrels I would like someone to get rid of.  (I've heard they cook up really well with Shake N Bake for chicken or pork.)

There's 2 trees to take down (black walnuts tree). I'll even supply the gas!! One of them the Amish want to use for rifle stock and other for other woodworking, and the rototiller would be great where I have to reseed a hill. Sorry. No shrubs to urinate on. 

And there's great fishing and canoeing 1/4 mile south of me ... so be sure to bring your fishing gear ... 

_there are 118,000 acres in the PRSF..... how much can you use in one weekend? _

There are other people that live right near the PRSF that feel the same way you do. But they cannot use that land unless hunting. sad.


----------



## mi_bassman

I didn't say you couldn't use the PRCF. I'm just saying leave your
destructive aniaml at home and don't ask me to put up with it.
OH....yeah I'll need an address and some directions.


----------



## MOODMagazine

Okay Gabrielle move on from the PR land that hunters bought. Know what the Fish and Game Fund is? 51 percent of the land was bought with Fish and Game Fund monies. 

And you're right massive amounts of restoration have occurred on the Great Lakes. Feel free to thank an angler or an MUCC member next time you see one for providing the funding and initiative to take care of that issue for you as well.


----------



## MOODMagazine

Gabrielle wrote: I think the way to do it, is for groups to go out into the area and figure out where trails could go, where camping could be that would be mutually agreeable. Maybe there are sites that should be closed during hunting seasons or large game seasons or firearms seasons."

EXACTLY. Now we're talking the same language. That's EXACTLY what MUCC is trying to achieve. It's the very best solution. Problem is you're advocating for a people that allows for NONE of that. It supercedes local regulations that could have been conducted in this very manner. That's precisely why MUCC opposes it -- it's bad public policy becuase it has broad, sweeping language that prevents the very sort of solution you and MUCC are suggesting. We don't want to keep the horses out. We want to create a situation where co-existence is possible without hunters being forced out or horse users facing resentment. No one wins when that happens.


----------



## brisco

*Ok I've taken the time to read every post, I believe, though I admit some I scanned quickly.*
*[/COLOR]* 
*Funny, I've camped and ridden PRSF for years, usually in October. To the best of my knowledge, there were no guidelines for us regarding where we were to ride, how to manage the manure, no posts in place so we could avoid tying our pickets to trees. Over time many of us learned to scatter manure as I said in my earlier post, we learned to use tree savers for our picket lines and we can certainly learn about areas that are fragile in order to protect them. We have had no conflict with others, but then again, it isn't hunting season when we generally ride horses in the Pigeon or in other areas around Michigan. *

*The other users I've personally seen most often are hunters bringing their young dogs out for training. Sometimes they spook a horse and sometimes the dogs get excited but its all part of the experience and we are always pleasant with one another. *

*Why the fuss about horse poo? For heavens sake! Do you believe for one minute the dog handlers are carrying the poop back with them? And the pee. Get real! People leave droppings and pee wherever they go as well, once they leave camp (or home).*
*People excrete lots of drugs - pain killers, anti-depressants, steroids, anti-biotics, anti-histimins, . . . . who knows what all? Horses on medication are rarely taken away from home for trail riding, believe me. A sick or injured horse stays home unless injured at camp.*

*No scientific evidence has been sited here, and non by the DNR at meetings, to demonstrate that horses used for recreational riding have a negative effect on the land, wildlife, or other users.*

*I was at the Pigeon 2 yrs ago and there was lots of shade and lots of trees. Just so you know too, we don't cross the river willy-nilly where-ever, nor do we tend to ride along the bank. *

*Is it necessary to mention the fact that EVERY group has members it isn't always proud of? Once we have the miles of trails we need and the powers that be mark trails clearly and post instructions about "no trace"camping with horses etc, the majority will comply most of the time. There will always be a few who will not. Its up to the rest of us to help keep our fellows in compliance. Ever know a hunter to take more than entitled, or use anothers back tag? Ever know a fisherman who keeps fish too small, or keeps too many? I thought so.*

*Come on, lighten up a little and remember we are not in competition. The land is for everyone not just those who wish to hunt/fish. *

*We all need education, communication and negotiation so there can be resolution.* 

*Its not about the money. Not this.:sad:*


----------



## DANIEL MARK ZAPOLSKI

in all these posts i still haven't heard any mention of a USER FEE just give us our miles and miles of trails and we'll give you tons and tons of S***
you people have been watching way to many reruns of ponderosa
JUST PAY TO PLAY OR GO AWAY
ANTE UP TO GIDDY UP


----------



## Gabrielle

brisco - I agree it shouldn't be about the $$ - but there are groups that have written to legislators and purported that Michigan will lose federal dollars if this legislation is passed. They have taken wording "could, may, might" and are attempting to scare legislators into the belief of "will". 

There are people that don't understand that the line was drawn in the sand between the DNR and the equestrians when the PRC management plan was approved rather than give a 1 year moratorium. The results are the legislation - HB 4610 and SB 578 because there are no other means of restoring land use rights to other users without legislation. 

MOOD: Here's where the money came from to BUY the land. 
http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7-153-10366_46403_46404-138321--,00.html



> Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund -- the Public's Trust in Land for 30 Years
> 
> March 2, 2006
> The Michigan Department of Natural Resources has an 85-year history of caring for this states natural resources. Some resources, such as wildlife, fish and forests, are renewable resources that can be replenished and enhanced constantly.
> Other resources, such as oil and gas, are not renewable. Once taken, they are gone forever.
> In the early 1970s, the discovery of oil in the popular Pigeon River Country State Forest in the northern Lower Peninsula prompted several oil companies to apply for rights to drill in this pristine wilderness, which is home to Michigans elk herd.
> This touched off a heated debate between those concerned with the environmental impact of drilling on public lands and those who felt that drilling could occur with minimal impact. *Eventually, a compromise was reached which allowed drilling in the forest provided that sufficient environmental protection was ensured and that lease revenues and royalties would be used for the purchase of new recreational lands for public use.*
> 
> *Previously, revenues from leasing state land for oil and natural gas exploration and from royalties on successful wells had *
> *been funneled directly into the states general fund. *The money was spent as fast as it was earned.
> Advocates of the trust fund concept, including then State Senator Kerry Kammer, believed it fair and logical to use profit from public lands to enhance public ownership, thus compensating the public for intrusion on their lands with enhanced recreational opportunities.
> 
> When the original land trust fund was established with the passage of the *Kammer Recreational Land Acquisition Fund Act of 1976*, it was hailed by environmentalists, conservationists and recreation groups as an investment in Michigans future.
> In effect, the trust fund would allow the people of Michigan to trade two valuable nonrenewable resources, oil and gas, for another nonrenewable resource -- land.
> The trust funds ceiling was set at $100 million. Although *the original purpose of the fund was solely to preserve and protect Michigan's natural resources through buying and/or improving public parks and recreation lands, *its financial success made it a target to help balance the state budget. During its first seven years, more than $100 million was diverted to other programs outside its original stated purpose.
> 
> *Michigan voters* then stepped in to approve a constitutional amendment in 1984, creating a new Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund that provided constitutional protection for the original funding level and purpose of the land trust fund and increased the fund cap to $200 million. Under the new law, up to one-third of trust fund revenues could be spent annually to purchase land for resource protection and public outdoor recreation and develop outdoor recreational facilities across the state.
> 
> In 1994, Michigan voters overwhelmingly approved Proposal P, which finally reversed the constitutional provision that allowed the annual diversion of $20 million from the trust fund to the states major economic development fund. The proposal also increased the trust fund cap to $400 million and created a Michigan State Parks Endowment Fund, which receives $10 million in trust fund revenues each year for the operation, maintenance and capital improvements at Michigan State Parks.
> Finally, in 2002, voters approved Proposal 2, which increased the cap to $500 million.
> *During the 30 years of its existence, the trust fund has provided more than $600 million for state and local land acquisition and natural resource development projects in every county in Michigan,* said Jim Wood, manager of DNR Grants Management section.
> *These projects have included some very special tracts of land -- places such as the Pigeon River Country State Forest,* St.
> Johns Marsh and the tip of the Keweenaw Peninsula; hundreds of miles of frontage on the Au Sable, Manistee, Jordan and other significant inland rivers and hundreds of acres of precious Great Lakes shoreline.
> 
> Since 2002, the trust fund also has contributed more than $16 million to allow the DNR to acquire a working forest conservation easement allowing timbering and public access on approximately 248,000 acres of land in several counties across the Upper Peninsula. This project, known as the Kamehameha Schools Development Rights Purchase, represents the
> single largest easement purchase in the states history.
> The trust fund is the single most important tool available to state and local governments to ensure public outdoor recreation opportunities for future generations, Wood said. Without the trust fund, very little additional recreational lands would be acquired.
> A few of the DNRs significant recreation development projects include the Black Mountain Forest Recreation Area, a 9,000-acre multi-purpose complex developed with trust fund support in the early 1990s. *Trust Fund revenues also provided nearly $2 million for property acquisition and construction of the Presque Isle Marina in 1992, and more than $900,000 to upgrade DNR-operated shooting ranges at Rose Lake, Sharonville and Pontiac Lake. *A 13-mile hard-surfaced trail for walkers, joggers and bikers that meanders through the Island Lake Recreation Area was completed in 1997.
> *The trust fund has* *helped build access sites for boating and fishing* at many locations throughout the state, *and it has also played a key role in developing Michigans statewide trailways system,* where abandoned railroad corridors are converted into multi-purpose recreational trails, popularly known as rail trails.
> 
> *These land acquisitions and development projects represent an economic investment in the quality of life in Michigan,* Wood
> said. Their value to Michigan residents and future generations in terms of protection of valuable land resources and enhanced state, regional and local recreation opportunities is immeasurable.


I know and appreciate all the sportsmen and women have done for the outdoors of the United States. A large number of HORSEBACK TRAIL RIDERS are sportsmen and women too and contribute greatly to both industries. I do not support "look don't touch" environmental groups. I have contributed to groups as I am able. 

What I do not appreciate is being targeted as an equestrian. If I were a mushroom gatherer and I was suddenly and without input, stopped from accessing land - I would be just as irritated. If I were a dog trialer and I was suddenly targeted - I would be irate. 

For me, it is not just the PRSF - it's the state game areas all across Michigan that trust fund monies, and before that, general fund money, bought. 
I think the sportsmen should keep in mind that the citizens of Michigan - all of them - voted to use money that used to go to General Fund, to use that money for ... 


> "Michigan voters then stepped in to approve a constitutional amendment in 1984, creating a new Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund that provided constitutional protection for the original funding level and purpose of the land trust fund and increased the fund cap to $200 million. Under the new law, up to one-third of trust fund revenues could be spent annually *to purchase land for resource protection and public outdoor recreation and develop outdoor recreational facilities* across the state."


Between inception date and 2006 - that was more than $600 million dollars - in addition to previously used general fund money.


----------



## Gabrielle

MOODMagazine said:


> Feel free to thank an angler or an MUCC member next time you see one for providing the funding and initiative to take care of that issue for you as well.


Umm... excuse me, but MUCC is for MICHIGAN united conservation clubs. I believe there are MANY other states and EVEN ANOTHER COUNTRY - Eh Canada? that border the Great Lakes. Let's see Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, NY .... And not just ANGLERS but many many many conservation groups. People that like to use the beaches. Boaters, commercial fisheries, yada yada yada.
The cleanup goes back to 1960s .... 

To hear you ... MUCC is the savior of all. Hardly. 

If MUCC wants to cooperate and claims equestrians amongst its members, why did it vote AGAINST the 1 year moratorium for the PRC Management Plan? 

Did I miss where the links were provided about those scientific studies that MUCC claims were used regarding bikers and equestrians?


----------



## mi_bassman

Science....we don't need no science, CLOSE ELK HILL TRAIL CAMP
Do you really need science to tell you that poop machines should
not be allowed near the RIVER, COME ON!! You people amaze me,
all you can do is deny the facts. Geez.... come up with a plan!!!
Look I gather ammo and pour fuel on the fire...to force you to
suggest an alternative. Figure out how you can ride with as
little impact as possible, without pissing others off. CAN YOU
DO THAT....GEEZ, quit aruguing with me. Get your backsides
in gear and come up with a plan that everyone is happy with.


----------



## brdhntr

DANIEL MARK ZAPOLSKI said:


> in all these posts i still haven't heard any mention of a USER FEE just give us our miles and miles of trails and we'll give you tons and tons of S***
> you people have been watching way to many reruns of ponderosa
> JUST PAY TO PLAY OR GO AWAY
> ANTE UP TO GIDDY UP


You need to do a little reading, there has been a bridle fee bill introduced, it was mentioned in one of the threads about this issue. Most of the riders are not opposed to a bridle fee to ride. However, the topic of this thread is the right to ride bill, not the fees, that is a separate subject, hence the lack of discussion on it. Start a new thread about it and I'm sure you will get what you want.

Here it is post #108:
http://http://www.michigan-sportsman.com/forum/showthread.php?t=286987&highlight=bridle&page=8


----------



## DANIEL MARK ZAPOLSKI

and you need to do a little thinking! the right to ride goes hand in hand with a user fee. fishing fees for fishing, hunting fees for hunting. you can spin it all you like mister o'rielly but it boils down to user fees thats what pays for everything.
ANTE UP TO GIDDY UP---PAY TO PLAY OR GO AWAY


----------



## Gabrielle

brdhntr said:


> You need to do a little reading, there has been a bridle fee bill introduced, it was mentioned in one of the threads about this issue. Most of the riders are not opposed to a bridle fee to ride. However, the topic of this thread is the right to ride bill, not the fees, that is a separate subject, hence the lack of discussion on it. Start a new thread about it and I'm sure you will get what you want.
> 
> Here it is post #108:
> http://http://www.michigan-sportsman.com/forum/showthread.php?t=286987&highlight=bridle&page=8


 
Thank you. Exactly. If we have no place to ride how can they charge a fee? 
Right to Ride, HB 4610 and SB 578 are not just about riding in the PRSF - it's about land all over Michigan. 

Better teach the birds and ducks not to poop too. I hear that there are some that are gross contaminators of the lakes.


----------



## DANIEL MARK ZAPOLSKI

apparently you all flunked the class on negotiations you have to give in order to get. you start out taking and then think about giving. you have been riding for free for years and i might add destroying everything in your paths and off the paths. therein lies your problems with loosing what was granted to you. in other words you completely abused your privileges and now people are taking them away. its kind of like training children, when your bad the toys get taken away.
ANTE UP TO GIIDDY UP -- PAY TO PLAY OR GO AWAY


----------



## Roosevelt

I recently took walks on several horse trails located in different counties. My observations were this:

Lots of beer and pop cans, chip bags, etc. left near the trails. Seriously eroded ground to the point that it is impassible to anyone other than a horse or a guy wearing stilts and hipboots. Lotsa horse poop all over the place making so no one would want to walk the trails if they could. Also, there was a couple riding who had nearly zero control of their animals which could have resulted in me being clobbered. Don't take your animals out if you can't control em, this includes dogs.

I see alot of the same stuff on the mountain bike trails: Powerade, propel, energy bar wrappers, etc. etc. Erosion of the trails. Disrespect of the resource and an expectation of ownership w' nearly zero amount of paying for the cost of upkeep.

Two of these trails were clearly marked at the trailhead and along the way asking riders to not ride during spring thaws and after rainy periods. Alot of riders were still using the trails.

Alot of mountain bikers and horseback riders use trails that are off limits and blaze their own trails. 

I'd be more willing to give support if you're groups as a whole would show responsibilty for the trails they use.

It'd be nice if we all had our own equal trails; hikers, bikers and horseback riders.


----------



## Gabrielle

Roosevelt said:


> I recently took walks on several horse trails located in different counties. My observations were this:
> 
> Lots of beer and pop cans, chip bags, etc. left near the trails. Seriously eroded ground to the point that it is impassible to anyone other than a horse or a guy wearing stilts and hipboots. Lotsa horse poop all over the place making so no one would want to walk the trails if they could. Also, there was a couple riding who had nearly zero control of their animals which could have resulted in me being clobbered. Don't take your animals out if you can't control em, this includes dogs.
> 
> I see alot of the same stuff on the mountain bike trails: Powerade, propel, energy bar wrappers, etc. etc. Erosion of the trails. Disrespect of the resource and an expectation of ownership w' nearly zero amount of paying for the cost of upkeep.
> 
> Two of these trails were clearly marked at the trailhead and along the way asking riders to not ride during spring thaws and after rainy periods. Alot of riders were still using the trails.
> 
> Alot of mountain bikers and horseback riders use trails that are off limits and blaze their own trails.
> 
> I'd be more willing to give support if you're groups as a whole would show responsibilty for the trails they use.
> 
> It'd be nice if we all had our own equal trails; hikers, bikers and horseback riders.


 
I agree that people taking animals onto the land should have them in control. I know that horses will react to sudden movement - they are prey animals; however, the rider should be able to control that within a few moments. But this sudden reaction is is also why riding horses on roads is so dangerous. A sudden spook from a car horn or appearance around a sharp curve and the horse reacts. 

I believe there are poor land users amongst all groups. I myself have done trail cleanup getting on and off my horse to pick up what has been left by others. Filling saddle bags with other's debris. 

So far as the erosion... yes. But remember that so long as there are strict limits to where horses and bikes may go, that means creater impact in a single track. So it's a double-edge sword. The more limitations, the more erosion. 

This is why it is SO imperative to open up more areas throughout the state to reduce the impact on the few that are open. 

The Recreational Trails Program (RTP) funding from the Federal Government is a resource that can be used. Volunteer hours. Prisoner time can be used. etc. etc. Educate users and then enforce the laws. If there were no troopers or sheriffs patrolling streets and highways, how many would adhere to posted speed limits? 

But until there is access to a broader range of areas, the impact will be more significant in the few areas that remain and to the restricted trails.


----------



## DANIEL MARK ZAPOLSKI

But until there is access to a broader range of areas, the impact will be more significant in the few areas that remain and to the restricted trails
now thats some real logic:lol: let us have more land to destroy so it doesn't look so bad. then after all those new areas are totally destroyed. then give you more trails so you can destroy those areas also. brilliant idea, no wonder the MDNR wants to shut you down. personally they should shut down the biker trails to, they pay nothing also and trash out the land to. kinda like 2 peas out of the same pod, users and abusers


----------



## brisco

*DMZ - where is your logic? Whats more, what did you learn in kindergarten? And btw, what science do you have to show that horses destroy more than elk, deer, people on foot, snowmobiles, orvs, bikes . . . . hunters w/without dogs? *
[/COLOR] 
*Whats more, we wouldn't have to have legislation to protect our rights if somebody with their own agenda(s) hadn't started bullying us and withdrawing what we already had (too little of, as in camping). Your turn will come as it always does. *

*I must say, I believe your prejudice is merely personal - as in "I don't like horses". Perhaps you could begin thinking more about others and even try to walk a mile in our shoes. "Do unto others as you would like them to do unto you".*

*I for instance would never shoot an animal at all,*
*and killing for recreation is out of the question. Yet, I support the rights of others to hunt game humanely and use the meat. Do I have to remind you there are people who would have all of us become vegitarian in order to protect animals? How about those animal rights people?*

*Define selfish. If the shoe fits ........*

*Sorry, you pushed my buttons. If there was a picture of a pig I would put it here.*

*Normally sweet Elaine*


----------



## DANIEL MARK ZAPOLSKI

still no mention of paying even a penny talk about greed. as for evidence open up those 2 slits in your forehead and use them to see all the destruction (NO NEED FOR SCIENCE WITH EVIDENCE) you and all your MR. EDS are doing. oh i know thats normal where ever horses go, i used to be a lead rider from a stables so don't even try and pull any of your s*** with me. as i see it you and all your horsemen or should i say women just joined this site in hopes of persuading the rest of us of the perils you face. but as i and many others see it you brought all this down upon yourselves. it is your obligation to police your fellow 80,000:lol: giddy up and go MR.EDS. as for the deer and elk their runways are in no strech of anyones imagination not even if they were on LSD any comparison to that of the ruts that the horses make. 
as far as the pig goes i think a picture of a hog maybe more applicable as i see it. as all you freeloading horse people took everything for free and screwed it up for yourselves. heres a little saying for you dear sweetie.
PIGS GET FAT HOGS GET SLAUGHTERED
ANTE UP TO GIDDY UP
PAY TO PLAY OR JUST GO AWAY


----------



## mi_bassman

That's the plan? access to more areas... I thought that maybe, you folks
could come up with a good plan. WRONG...I was willing to listen to some
new ideas , but it's seems the horseback riders want it all. The hunters and fishermen have, and live with all sorts of restrictions, horseback
riders aren't special. Ask the cigarette smokers about feeling the
squeeze!! Keep digging, the hole is getting deeper!!


----------



## Choclablover

WOW! I see that Mich 1 was BANNED!!!! For WHAT:SHOCKED:?
Can't you handle the truth here? 

Mich 1 has only been stating facts...which I find interesting....unlike some on this thread. Please leave us to debate the issues without the threat of being banned.

If you have to maybe you should target people that are constantly slinging mud and spewing hatred!!! 

:yikes:There's too much for some to comprehend and way too much research to post and prove to anyone here in this forum.:tdo12: 

:idea: A little "Free Speech" would be nice! Ever heard of it?

Lord willing justice will prevail!:coolgleam


----------



## brisco

Well folks, I began this thread to attempt to dialog with you and reach across and reach out to you. I personnally know many who hunt and fish extensively and none has ever seemed the least bit put out by horses on PUBLIC land. We horsemen/women are by definition included in the word PUBLIC, you know. We may not currently be paying specific fees for the priviledge of riding on public (state) owned land but we do buy hunting and fishing licenses, buy guns and ammo, buy gasoline etc. We cost virtually nothing by way of facilities and we provide lots of free labor. We also take no game or fish with us when we leave. We are only there to view the forests, meadows, plants and animals. We like the refreshing feel and smell of the fresh outdoor air. We may scatter road apples, but we don't harm any thing more (often less) than others. We are pretty quiet too! No gunshots to disturb the peace!:lol: We leave our camps and trails _at least_ as clean as most others, and again, some individuals are more responsible than others as in any group. (At this point, I feel I really must tell you all about the broken glass, beer cans, and discarded trash my friends & I have found in non-horse areas we have come across while riding on two-tracks etc. At lease poop becomes soil at some point.) Every group has its black sheep. For those of you who think its all paid for with your dollars - sorry - its not so! If you think we have it so good - then buy a horse but get ready for the learning curve!

We've had our dialogue - some of you are reasonable and fair; some of you are broken records & haven't actually responded to any facts or been the least bit fun to visit with. I'm very glad to know you are not the majority of sportsmen.
[/COLOR] 
*In this ol' world there are bigger fish to fry*. I will be riding horses as long as the Lord gives me the ability. I will be camping with Brisco the foxtrotter and my friends on Michigan trails, both state and federal . I expect to be politically active and the *Right to Ride is just one of many issues that I care deeply about. *I believe in the right to speak freely, the right to own guns, the right to bring up our children to be responsible moral citizens, the right to work, and the right to hold the government responsible both in the use of our money and in moral leadership.... oh, I think we grownups know whats important in the big picture. I plan to go down (actually up!) fighting in some way to the end. The next generation deserves our best, can we agree on that?

Off to other pressing matters and Gabrielle, if I'm not mistaken I'll be seeing you girlfriend probably at Goosecreek? Keep up the good work and thanks.
 
ps

My apologies about the pig remark, dmz. It wasn't very nice of me. I might like to face you and mi bass face to face -- you would actually have to respond to something said directly to you. You would have a tough time repeating the same ol thing in real life! Still, in many things we would find agreement no doubt. A sense of humor and a sense of fairness would go a long way guys!

Elaine


----------



## mi_bassman

The world is going...GREEN....the horse, due to size and weight, distrubs
the ground and makes a huge amount of waste. Public land, yes, and
when on it take care of and respect it. The fact that you are being
restricted all over the state, means the PUBLIC is no longer willing to
accept the damage or the waste. Time changes everything, fit in or
be squeezed out, watch what happens to the gasoline engine in the
next few years. Sorry...it's the way it is....it's not that we don't like
the horse itself, it's no longer conducive to sensitive wilderness areas.
The science would only hurt your cause more.


----------



## mi_bassman

Now that you have had some time to digest reality, it's time to realize,
maybe you need to change tactics. Being nasty, pushy, aggressive and
demanding isn't working. Fit in or be pushed out! You may want to ask
some of the user groups, how, where and when can we fit in. No group
should be excluded, but quit asking for more than the other groups are
willing to give. A little, is better than none at all, take it and be happy.
Every user group has some sort of restrictions....to be unrestricted is
crazy. That opens the door for widespread abuse, which leads to an
upset public, which leads to even more rules. X- amount of campsites,
X-amount of horses, marked trails, walk in only times, better clean up
of waste, no acess to senitive areas, buffer zones, and user fees.
All within reason and agreed upon. More work, time, and money on 
your part, you decide if it's worth it.


----------



## brisco

Mi Bass, sorry I can't find much to agree with you about.
[/COLOR] 
1st. It wasn't the public that began the process of squeezing us out. It is/was the Michigan DNR perhaps goaded by some special interest. We appeared to be an easy target because we had no huge organization- ie snowmobilers, bikers, etc. all had their organizations in place. No longer the case, _*we have united*_ and we have a united voice. We are here to stay and we will be represented at all levels.

2nd. Please reread the original post. Was there _*anything in that post*_ that could possibly be considered pushy at all? Also the very tone of all our posts save one (when I let dmz have it) are quite gentle.

3rd. Science does matter. You scarcely have a foot to stand on unless you can demonstrate what damage is being done, how extensive. Green? Nothing greener than natural forces of nature creating change where it will. Horse poo vs motor oil, gasoline, noise? No contest. 

I like my recreation -- you like yours. I don't march around with a gun to kill and make noise- you don't enjoy the smell and feel of a partner horse. Still I respect your right to hunt with a gun on public land. Should you be restricted to some 11 or so acres at the Pigeon? Hmm.

Most disturbing is your attitude. Not appealing and I firmly believe, not typical. Guess this is not a good place to carry on a conversation after all. 

I never see you in the woods - we have different seasons. Always feel some comaradarie with those I do see while out riding. 

Moving on. 

Elaine


----------



## mi_bassman

When you put your agenda ( the need or want to ride, unrestricted)
ahead of what's good for the environment, it's a perfect demonstration
of what's more important to you. Hunting...it's best you tread lightly
in that arena. You are not understanding...by all means stick with your
attitude and deny the facts...it's a speedy way to arrive at your final
destination....the dimise of your cause.


----------



## Teach8pipa

What proof is there that the garbage remains are that of a horseback rider?? You were out walking the trails, how is one to know that it wasn't a pedestrian littering the trails. 
I have viewed lakes, streams and ponds covered with the remnants of engine oil and fuel. Should we now ban fisherman from utilizing boats on our waters?
Any time I've walked the trails I have seen countless spent shotgun shells. I am confident those were left by a hunter or marksmen. 
As far as erosion, one simply could not come to the conclusion that a horse, or even a herd of them, could cause more damaging erosion than an ATV or group of cyclists! 
The fact is that horse back riders have the RIGHT to use any and all trails that are available to any other sport. The horse industry brings and keeps billions of dollars in the state of Michigan. Horse trailers are pulled by Chevys, Fords, and Dodges. Our dollars support the local feed store and farm owner.
I am not sure what the real issue is at hand, but I can just about guarantee that it is NOT litter, erosion or the occassional pile of horse dung!
Almost every fellow rider I share the trails with is also an avid hunter and fishing enthusiast as I am. I don't comprehend the need to pit the two against each other. We ALL have the same goal.


----------



## Islander26

Teach8pipa said:


> The fact is that horse back riders have the RIGHT to use any and all trails that are available to any other sport.


So horses are special and can ride any trail  Does that mean I can ride my atv on any trail? I don't think so.


----------



## J-Lee

We are blessed with an abundance of public land, here in Michigan, there should be room for us all. The horse people I know are very responsible stewards of the land. Why a compromise can't be reached is beyond me. I have expressed my concerns to the D.N.R.


----------



## mi_bassman

The PRCF, its fragile environment, and wildlife should be the horseback
riders #1 concern. If it isn't, what is? The right to ride? Please
explain how the relentless pursuit of the elk from early spring to
late fall is beneficial to these animals. Being restricted to marked
trails contains the damage and keeps it away from senstive areas,
like swamps, wetlands, lake and stream banks. Denial of all the damage caused by horses is both insulting and infuriating, quit blaming the elk,
step up and take responsibility. You say I need science to prove, I 
say you need science to disprove. With an animal the size of a horse
it's impossible to LEAVE NO TRACE !!!


----------



## S.E.M.O.R.E.

duxdog said:


> It is not an excuse because I hunt other property that this farmer owns. And here a few month ago the county parks was looking at opening up the parks to hunting because there are too many deer and the deer/car accidents keep going way up. The only group opposing the hunting in the parks was the horse riding groups.


Fair enough....thankyou for clarifying.

Unfortunately the world has a lot of selfish minded people. The equestrians I know have no issues with hunting. 

I have never been turned away from a farmers field to hunt unless they had family or friends they were saving it for. I HAVE been told by them to be wary of livestock, and specifically "the neighbors horses". More than once the goofy horses followed us along the fence....I think they watch my bird dog. 

I have hunted not only Michigan, but also Ohio, Nebraska, Wyoming, and Colorado. 

Watching those Cowboys hunt elk from horseback in Wyoming was educational. 

I saw one guy hanging on for dear life on horseback going up the side of a mountain when several elk spooked. I later found out he was a friend of the "Rancher" knew how to ride, and due to inventory, without them "thinking about it" made the mistake of putting this poor fella on a "cutting horse". The horse did a good job, but the rider was pretty much played out at the end of the ride. LOL.


----------



## mi_bassman

The horses have not been banned from public land, they can still ride in the
PRCF. What they were doing by being unrestricted got out of control, hence
all the complaints. No one complained about the hikers, the fishermen, the
mushroom hunters or others, but everyone complained about the horses.
Believe me, it was out of control, so some restrictions were started, and
the horseback riders don't like the rules....so they whine. Apparently rules
are for people that don't own horses....go figure...who knew. They can't
use public land and leave no trace, the horses leave waste, and churn up
the ground. So if we must use rules to make their activity as low impact
as possible...then so be it. They just have to learn to live with...RULES...
just like the rest of us. NO BIG DEAL!!


----------



## S.E.M.O.R.E.

mi_bassman said:


> The horses have not been banned from public land, they can still ride in the
> PRCF. What they were doing by being unrestricted got out of control, hence
> all the complaints. No one complained about the hikers, the fishermen, the
> mushroom hunters or others, but everyone complained about the horses.
> Believe me, it was out of control, so some restrictions were started, and
> the horseback riders don't like the rules....so they whine. Apparently rules
> are for people that don't own horses....go figure...who knew. They can't
> use public land and leave no trace, the horses leave waste, and churn up
> the ground. So if we must use rules to make their activity as low impact
> as possible...then so be it. They just have to learn to live with...RULES...
> just like the rest of us. NO BIG DEAL!!


I get your point about rules, but I question the need for SO MANY RULES to utilize public land.

As far as the dung....no I dont want it in my front yard, but it's simply a fact of life in the wild. Hunting in Wyoming and Colorado on BLM land I dodged all kinds of meadow muffins from wild horses to grazing cattle. Here in Michigan, I went to my camp in April and guess what.....My yard had several meadow muffins from the neighbors cows.....They arent supposed to be there to begin with, I would like to think it was not intentional, and it certainly wasnt the end of the world. Grabbed a shovel and flung it off into the woods.

Churn up the ground? Is that a problem? Nature takes care of that stuff, it's not like the horses are dumping benzine or something that permanently pollutes the dirt. 

Percentagewise, just how many hunters actually utilize pigeon? I mean 3 months out of the year a certain number of hunters go to pigeon. The rest of the year this public land sits vacant and abandoned unless other user groups utilize it. WHY???? WHAT HONEST REAL PURPOSE IS THERE to exclude people from the out of doors on public land aside from selfishness?

I see the move on to eliminate people from public land period. Incremental as it is, every year it's a bit more restriction. Enough is enough.


----------



## mi_bassman

No one has been banned or excluded from public land...they just have
rules to follow now....and, yes the churned up ground is a problem..
And, no it doesn't repair itself....it's called trail degradation...do
a comp search, check out manure management and run off from
animal waste...drive to the prcf and get some pics of the churned
up ground...it's easy to find...and,no thats not elk damage !!!
Thats the way they treat public land....sad


----------



## S.E.M.O.R.E.

mi_bassman said:


> No one has been banned or excluded from public land...they just have
> rules to follow now....and, yes the churned up ground is a problem..
> And, no it doesn't repair itself....it's called trail degradation...do
> a comp search, check out manure management and run off from
> animal waste...drive to the prcf and get some pics of the churned
> up ground...it's easy to find...and,no thats not elk damage !!!
> Thats the way they treat public land....sad


Respectfully, I beg to differ, nature repairs itself. Pigeon was a wasteland. It was timbered off, it burned, and who knows what else before then. All those changes, the planet evolves, pigeon is still there, big and beautiful. Nature repairs itself.

Manure runoff is a problem in cattle feed lots, commercial operations, and SOME farmers in the way they manage their farms. Apples and oranges to compare Pigeon.

People go through phases. They pursue activities for a period of time and move on. 30 years ago, the woods was orange in November, a far cry different today. The horse situation will follow the same fate. Perhaps it's at it's peak, might increase a bit but ultimately it will wane off, priorities will change. 

The DNR didnt want to compromise with this scenario at inception. They dropped the iron fist. If this legislation passes, wonder if they might rethink their dictatorial methods in the future, and attempt to work out compromise vs. the way they handled pigeon.

I tell you honestly, I have spoke with several hunting acquaintances and mentioned horses and pigeon. ONE mentioned he has seen horses while bird hunting, he felt they should have been wearing orange for safety, but they were no problem, and nice to visit with. The others, either dont or havent hunted pigeon, OR had no dealings with the horses period.

That was the foundation of my question of how many hunters actually hunt in pigeon. Out of 10 I spoke to, 1 has hunted there more than once, and only does on occasion, and the others dont go near it due to preferred areas or private property preference. I havent heard ANY complaints about horses except on this board, and from one outdoor oriented writer. I kinda wonder if this is impacting many or only a few hunters?

Seems to me the less we are restricted, the less concentrated we will be.


----------



## duxdog

If I can't take my quad(which I do not own one) off the trail and drive it through the woods and acrossed the stream. Then why should I be able to ride my horse(which I do not own one) through the woods and acrossed the stream?


----------



## tommy-n

duxdog said:


> If I can't take my quad(which I do not own one) off the trail and drive it through the woods and acrossed the stream. Then why should I be able to ride my horse(which I do not own one) through the woods and acrossed the stream?


Because your quad does not leave poop all over the place


----------



## mi_bassman

Unresticted horseback riding...no seat belts, no speed limits, no bag limits,no 
size limits, no restrictions for any of us. The DNR didn't impose the restrictions
because they had a slow day and needed something to do. There was a 
growing number of COMPLAINTS. Run off is a problem at Elk Hill...The damage
to the ground caused by the horses is an ongoing repair process that will
never be complete. Like I said, go to the PRCF and look around the visual
evidence of horse damage is everywhere. Who's coaching you folks to deny
everything....it's growing old. But if that's all ya got...might as well go with it.
I can go there fish and camp for a week, leave no evidence I was there, and
give no one any reason to complain. The horse folks can't do that.


----------



## S.E.M.O.R.E.

mi_bassman said:


> Unresticted horseback riding...no seat belts, no speed limits, no bag limits,no
> size limits, no restrictions for any of us. The DNR didn't impose the restrictions
> because they had a slow day and needed something to do. There was a
> growing number of COMPLAINTS. Run off is a problem at Elk Hill...The damage
> to the ground caused by the horses is an ongoing repair process that will
> never be complete. Like I said, go to the PRCF and look around the visual
> evidence of horse damage is everywhere. Who's coaching you folks to deny
> everything....it's growing old. But if that's all ya got...might as well go with it.
> I can go there fish and camp for a week, leave no evidence I was there, and
> give no one any reason to complain. The horse folks can't do that.


I dont get the logic to ban speed limits or eliminate seatbelts. BOTH save lives.

Bag limits are necessary due to greedy people that would rather take and likely waste instead of share.

Damage? What IS damage? 

Runoff. A phenomenon that is going to happen anyway. If it's a hill there's going to be runoff.

Visual evidence of horses and the fact there are no wild horses in Michigan tells me some people had FUN. Just like you when you camp and fish. FUN. 

It's more about YOUR perception. I bet you DO leave visual evidence. Camping cannot help but leave visual evidence. Fishing leaves behind visual evidence too. Lures stuck in understory, bait containers, less fish, wads of monofilament line hanging from tree limbs. You dont do it, (I HOPE) but others do. So let's ban fishing too. Oh, and camping...ya know those camp fires and propane lanterns contribute to greenhouse gasses right?

Mocking? yea a little bit. It's to illustrate how rediculous this arguement against horses is.

Nobody is coaching me. It's a simple common sense approach in response to lies told by DNR administration at the expense of me the resource user.

Produce some sound scientific evidence and sound reasoning WHY horses or any other recreational activivity in pigeon or any other state land is a hazard to mankind or will result in future danger to man. I will save you the trouble. There isnt any.

A comparison to this claim of eco impact. Ever look at state land after forestry "manages" it? Looks like a bomb went off in the clear cuts. The mechanized machinery used in a select cut alters the landscape, creates erosive conditions, and in some cases causes a complete "change" to the environment. SO WHAT??? Nature repairs it. The insects, reptiles, mammals, the grasses, plants, trees, it all comes back.

DNR has goals. They have definitions for ZERO impact in the forest on their website. WHY??? What possible good can come from ZERO impact in Michigans Forests? Certainly nothing in our lifetime, and future generations will have other agenda's. Suppose pigeon becomes ZERO impact today. It literally gets ignored for the next 30 years or more. Then some development idea comes along. Well....Nobody is using it anyway....sure why not.

The real problem is selfish narcissistic attitudes brought to us by special interest eco-freaks utilizing the federal money train on the DNR highway, coupled with our Apathy, ignorance, and selfishness.


----------



## mi_bassman

You need to calm down, you sound upset. There's lots of complaints and the
visual evidence of horse destruction is everywhere...ARGUE WITH THAT!!!


----------



## S.E.M.O.R.E.

that's one thing I dislike about typing what I want to say or argue....no emotion, and apparently my writing style projects anger....NOT MY INTENT...

I DO understand and respect your opinions and posts, Thank You.


----------



## brisco

*It is interesting to note how very few hunters/fishers have bothered to reply to this thread. I believe it is because they have no particular interest -- they have no grudge against us horsemen. I know they agree with us. S E M O R E I appreciate you. *
[/COLOR] 
*Rules rules rules. Government has become too big and dictatorial. *

*BTW, maybe you'd like humans on foot (and their dogs) to be banned from walking through the forest/across streams et al. Fair is fair!*


----------



## mi_bassman

brisco said:


> *It is interesting to note how very few hunters/fishers have bothered to reply to this thread. I believe it is because they have no particular interest -- they have no grudge against us horsemen. I know they agree with us. S E M O R E I appreciate you. *
> 
> *Rules rules rules. Government has become too big and dictatorial. *
> 
> *BTW, maybe you'd like humans on foot (and their dogs) to be banned from walking through the forest/across streams et al. Fair is fair!*


I have no" grudge" nothing personal...most hunters/ fishers don't know where the PRCF
is and have never been there. Rules are part of everyones life....sorry ...and if you want
fair...then how do you compare horses to humans..1200 lb. humans don't walk around in
the woods....OK. We want to ride, no matter what....it's a little selfish...me....me.....me
Look at the damage you leave behind, for others to look at and deal with..disgusting!


----------



## Michael Wagner

One thing you could do to improve your image is clean up after your horses, my wife and I walk the trail from Columbiaville to Otter Lk. It is a paved trail and is for walkers, bikes and horses, I see the dog people with thier bags and shovels (not all) but have yet to see a horse rider get off and clean up thier mess. After reading this thread last week, on our walk last Sun there were 11 piles from horses and not one from a dog. Just a suggestion. Mike


----------



## brisco

Not feasable, Capt. Kroger. We do clean up after our horses at camp, but on a trail there is no way and really no need. _*I do see that on a paved surface that could be a problem. *_ Don't know why there is a paved surface regularly in use by horses other than roads, which we don't like to have to use and which are not preferred by walkers either. Seems odd to me. Maybe there is a way to get where they are going without using that blacktop. Hmm.

Elaine


----------



## brisco

*I learned to share a long time ago, MIBass. Have you? Doesn't sound like it. I believe you'd like to keep horses off 98% of public land (esp PRC) and use all the rest your way. Now that sounds selfish to me. *
[/COLOR] 
*Do you come out into the "wilderness" areas and expect not to find animal poo, rotting carcuses, decaying vegetation and signs of human activity? Wake up! If you go into the so called wilderness, you will find all of that and plenty of it. It is just a part of the cycle of life. (I will say, we humans as a species, do leave too many bottles and cans, bits of paper and the occasional hat or shoe. I would like everyone to pickup after themselves better*. I* am referring, of course, to items that do not occur in nature.*)* Beyond that, if you are offended by what is natural -- stay home. You can maintain your house and yard to the standard you prefer. *

*If you don't like stepping over a recent pile of horse poo -- we are not hard to avoid. Whats more - we don't sneak up on you. If a particular user wishes to avoid a particular group of users there is plenty of room to do so. There always was. *

*Come on, lighten up. Smile, roll your eyes, shrug and give thanks we are all different and yet we have common points too. My yard is beautiful and full of flowers. The barnyard contains some piles of poo. Eventually, they will melt into nature and nuture the vegetation and whatever relies on the vegetation for life. Its a cycle.:corkysm55 God knew what he was doing! Still does!*

*Elaine*


----------



## mi_bassman

brisco said:


> *I learned to share a long time ago, MIBass. Have you? Doesn't sound like it. I believe you'd like to keep horses off 98% of public land (esp PRC) and use all the rest your way. Now that sounds selfish to me. *
> 
> *Do you come out into the "wilderness" areas and expect not to find animal poo, rotting carcuses, decaying vegetation and signs of human activity? Wake up! If you go into the so called wilderness, you will find all of that and plenty of it. It is just a part of the cycle of life. (I will say, we humans as a species, do leave too many bottles and cans, bits of paper and the occasional hat or shoe. I would like everyone to pickup after themselves better*. I* am referring, of course, to items that do not occur in nature.*)* Beyond that, if you are offended by what is natural -- stay home. You can maintain your house and yard to the standard you prefer. *
> 
> *If you don't like stepping over a recent pile of horse poo -- we are not hard to avoid. Whats more - we don't sneak up on you. If a particular user wishes to avoid a particular group of users there is plenty of room to do so. There always was. *
> 
> *Come on, lighten up. Smile, roll your eyes, shrug and give thanks we are all different and yet we have common points too. My yard is beautiful and full of flowers. The barnyard contains some piles of poo. Eventually, they will melt into nature and nuture the vegetation and whatever relies on the vegetation for life. Its a cycle.:corkysm55 God knew what he was doing! Still does!*
> 
> *Elaine*


We are not talking about my ability to share...no, I'm not staying home...horses are not
natural to the PRCF...you trailer them in...if you stay on the marked trails then aviodence
will not be a problem...sounds like a beautiful yard...a pleasure to look at...no tore up ground...no piles of poo....no trees with the bark chewed off...and yes GOD knows what
he's doing...he gave us the ability to make rules for you to follow...so we could contain
the damage your horses do to public land....buy your own land ...ride your horse on it...
tear it up....then you can be the one to stay home.....hows that?....good idea?


----------



## brisco

You are a hoot! Funny guy! Tunnel vision, but oh well.
[/COLOR] 
Of course you _*do know that the PRC is not a true wilderness*_, and that it took men with horses to clear and settle Michigan. So they go back a very long way if you wish to bring that up. :lol::coolgleam:lol:

Horses do chew on trees from time to time *IF* they are too close with too little to eat. That problem can be prevented with the proper camping techniques. I am all for learning/teaching all the best tips. That is an area in which the DNR, Backcountry Horsemen and others can step up. Why, just last weekend some of us were camping near Manton and a fellow camper showed us his new/improved rachet style picket line. I believe he sold either 2 or 3 of them and my friend and myself bought one of them. I am thrilled. These are tight, high, safe and easy to use as well. Personnally, I can safely say that I have never had a horse that did chew trees but I know someone who did. Her bad.:16suspect Again, I say, there are hunters, fishers, hikers, dog trainers bird watchers and on and on, who do wrong or err. You know that too so don't get too arrogant, bass.

Elaine


----------



## Michael Wagner

Rails to trails, Elaine, old railroad lines that have been reclaimed for recreational use, this one runs from Oxford to Otter Lk. and eventually to Millington and yes quite a few people ride horses on it. Right in Gabrielles back yard. In your answer is part of the problem for us "not feasable" it`s feasable for most dog people to scoop and bag or toss, but to much trouble for horse people to clean up after themselves and so it`s up to others to walk around or through what horses leave behind. I dont know about the PRCF but if it ever came to a vote for this area I`m pretty sure you would be on the short end. I`m not arguing with you just pointing out the problem we see here. Mike


----------



## mi_bassman

It's as wild as it can be....it's 2009...and that was then....we are talking about
now...the horses are trailered in.... tunnel vision, arrogant,funny, a hoot...ya
got any more?


----------



## S.E.M.O.R.E.

Bassman, if you have a more "polite" thesaurus for the descriptive terms I would be happy to utilize it, please advise where I can find it.

As far as the terms I used, they are for descriptive purpose, and they do a pretty good job of getting the point across as to who I am referring to.

As far as my opinion, no I dont believe you have the right to tell me to quit. I would appreciate it if you would respect my constitutional right to express my opinion without attempting to belittle my verbage, or accuse me of getting upset, or expressing your personal views that I need to relax.

Take a look in the mirror and follow your own advice.

Or better yet, grab your pole and tackle and go fishing. It's a beautiful day.


----------



## mi_bassman

The subject of this discussion is horseback riding on public land. To rant,and
name call, gets off subject and serves no purpose. Now....what to heck is a
pole?.....Oh, you mean a rod....ok....getting back to the horses, lets discuss
ways to minimize the environmental damage and reduce user conflict in the
PRCF...the original subject of this discussion.


----------



## S.E.M.O.R.E.

mi_bassman said:


> The subject of this discussion is horseback riding on public land. To rant,and
> name call, gets off subject and serves no purpose. Now....what to heck is a
> pole?.....Oh, you mean a rod....ok....getting back to the horses, lets discuss
> ways to minimize the environmental damage and reduce user conflict in the
> PRCF...the original subject of this discussion.


My Grandfather and I spent countless hours fishing. He got my first fishing POLE for me when I was 4 and I remember it to this day. Taught me how to cast with the first casting reel he also got for me, likewise my first fly ROD. When we fished for BASS we used our fishing POLES when we fished for Trout we used our fly RODS.

As I see it, there is no environmental damage being done by the horses. None of it is a danger to my survival, it's not a hazardous waste, it takes NOTHING from the area, and as I have stated before, erosion is a natural phenomenon. The waste is bio-degradeable. 

The only real problem in pigeon is some folks apparently believe they have exclusive rights to it's use in a specific prescribed manner and others should keep out. Those individuals have prompted the DNR to make a very poor policy decision, to call in a favor with the USFWS producing an obfuscation of facts, which in turn has resulted in what the MUCC prescribes as bad legislation, which unfortunately is necessary simply because an overbearing DNR chooses to do as it pleases like a dictator, having already removed snowmobiles, atv's and bicycles.

When the legislation passes, a precedent will be set for other users to legislate statute rights to utilize state lands. Personally, I think it's disgusting. More legislation, More rules, More fees. Unfortunately, the current DNR Administration has brought us to this. Again, the DNR did this for political reasons, it hasnt got squat to do with sound scientific science, and every excuse they present has been discredited. 

If MY position prevails, more people will enjoy pigeon, not that I would bother.

If YOUR position prevails, only you and your few get to enjoy pigeon.

One is live and let live, the other is selfish. Which one are you?


----------



## mi_bassman

The PRCF is a small chunk of land set aside for all to enjoy in piece and quite.
There is plenty of places in Michigan to ride toys...we don't need to tear up
every square inch. The horseback riders can ride in the PRCF with some new
rules that they refuse to except. They also have plenty of other places to 
ride. My position on the PRCF is like the signs say...KEEP IT WILD WALK IN.
And no I'm not selfish...you can have all the sauteed owl you can eat !!!


----------



## S.E.M.O.R.E.

mi_bassman said:


> The PRCF is a small chunk of land set aside for all to enjoy in piece and quite.
> There is plenty of places in Michigan to ride toys...we don't need to tear up
> every square inch. The horseback riders can ride in the PRCF with some new
> rules that they refuse to except. They also have plenty of other places to
> ride. My position on the PRCF is like the signs say...KEEP IT WILD WALK IN.
> And no I'm not selfish...*you can have all the sauteed owl you can eat !!![/*quote]
> 
> LOL....that was "Spotted Owl"...you get the nexus, correct?
> 
> Over the last 30 years the equestrians have contributed labor and money from their own pockets, and grant monies have been obtained to develop the equestrian facilities. Recently, the DNR decided to implement "new rules" on behalf of a select few, and the obfuscation began when the Equestrians stood up to this.
> 
> Suddenly the DNR found itself in un-familiar territory. Snowmobiles, ATV's, Bicyclists rolled over and played sheeple. NOT THE EQUESTRIANS.
> 
> Mucc knows darn well that Pittman Robertson and Dingell Johnson funding is NOT in jeopardy. Simply put, Equestrian activity is permissible under US Code on Pittman Robertson and Dingell Johnson funded lands, and it was acknowledged via teleconfernece between persons present at the MUCC Conservation Coalition meeting and USFWS. It was also acknowledged that USFWS, I am paraphrasing, "swings whatever direction the local authority desires". Mindy Cooke set right there, heard it all, then declined comment, claiming that it wasnt the correct forum. HA!
> 
> Bassman, I hear ya, but you dont hear me. Your group should have taken the DNR to task a couple years ago over the hunting license fee increase fiasco, instead of opting NOT TO POINT FINGERS. Well pal, I have not agreed to move on.
> 
> This Pigeon River Agenda has me steamed. The DNR bullied it's way through, now they are backed into a corner and they know it. Do I particularily want to see horses every time I go out hunting or fishing? Well, the better question is, how long before the only public lands I can hunt must be restricted lands specific for hunting?
> 
> ANY PUBLIC LAND RESTRICTION OR TAKEAWAY that denies user activities, meaning recreational activities, is a bad one. In the interest of space let me just say within reason, it doesnt mean allow folks to trash the place, but it does mean to butt out with the extreme eco agenda's. It was mentioned about horses clouding the streams when they walk across....well, what about the fishermen wading? I know it's apples and oranges, but is it really??
> 
> We as outdoor recreationalists are embarking on the fight of our lives at the national level. It's really important that we as a state get our act together and unify. I will deal with finding another place to hunt if I run across hikers, or bikers, or bird watchers, horses, or heaven forbid, ANOTHER HUNTER that beat me to my favorite spot. There will be other opportunities for me to hit "that spot". There are abundant public areas for me to hunt and fish, at least for now. Likewise the other users have their abundances.
> 
> RESTRICTING PIGEON is nothing more than pandering politically.
> 
> I have had it with political agenda's. I am all about the truth, transparency, integrity, and fighting the good fight. ALL Outdoor Recreationalists should be on the same page, and that page is to address the mismanagement of the DNR. Their agenda is politics, it's not about the eco-system, or preserving wildlife. It's about power and money. Enough is enough. Passing the right to ride legislation is a first step in putting DNR in it's place. This isnt the fault of legislators. This is the fault of a DNR management with an ulterior motive agenda. They are short timers. We need to stop further damage and havoc implemented by them.
> 
> Now, you wanna play ball, or are you a sheeple?


----------



## boehr

This whole thread has turned into a pile of horse manure. Talk about half truths and flase claims. I heard it all with the horses and the Allegan SGA. They (horse people) always want everything and don't want to work together.


----------



## S.E.M.O.R.E.

boehr said:


> This whole thread has turned into a pile of horse manure. Talk about half truths and flase claims. I heard it all with the horses and the Allegan SGA. They (horse people) always want everything and don't want to work together.


Humbly, I ask you please, set me straight on any half truths or false claims I have posted. To the best of my knowledge I have written fact or qualified my statement indicating I have paraphrased, aside from my personal opinions. If you have factual evidence to prove me wrong, since nobody is perfect including me, I honestly would appreciate it if you would set me straight.


----------



## Gabrielle

Michael Wagner said:


> S.E.M.O.R.E. my suggestion was to improve the image of equestrians and maybe influence some undecided opinions, that "maybe" on a paved walking trail that has the triangle sign thats says people have the right of way then bicycles then horses, they might want to clean up after themselves (most dog walkers do) and the answer basicaly was "it was inconvienent to get off the horse" so therefore all the other users of the trail should just deal with it. Did allot for my opinion. Mike


It's not so much a matter of inconvenience as it is a matter of horses walk and poop at the same time and I rarely know when my horse is taking a dump. 

I wrote you a private message about the Southern Links trailways (SLT) that you keep referring to and I'll provide that here as well so others can read it. 

I wanted to explain something to you about the SLT. First, that trail (Columbiaville to Vassar) was envisioned by a man that wanted to create a campground for horse people to use. The founding members of the SLT were *horse people*. The original funding was generated by horse people. Steve Keim, Keith Seamann and his daughters, myself, and others in the area. I can remember the meetings at Marathon Twsp hall and working on mission statement and the charter. Diane Seaman is the chair person for the VERY successful fund raising committee and she has told the SLT group that if they boot the horses off, her fund raising will end. Her family was one that was nearly ticketed when the DNR booted horses off Lapeer State Game area THAT WAS ORIGINALLY DONATED FOR HORSES! Kings Ranch was a horseback riding ranch and was donated to the state and then was reclassified as state game land and horses were banned. 

SLT is another example of what happens all too often. Horse people start riding someplace and create trails, then others start using the trails and then soon, the others want it PAVED and are dismayed by the horse manure. And then the horses are kicked out. Typically, horses create the trails and horse people are live and let live and don't care if others use the trails (except for dirt bikes that can scare the crap out of a horse and create accidents). But I in the past 20 years I've seen what happens when horse people sit back. 

The DNR is doing their divide and conquer. They are also making it harder and harder for anyone to use the land. Then they can say "Look, this state land isn't being hunted or used, let's timber harvest it and then subdivide it." You, Michael, should be aware of the old growth hardwoods in the woods in Lapeer county. Think of the timber money that could be. No horse trails, no trails for hunters to use. Soon, no hunters go more than 100 feet from the parking areas (that's what the DNR tech told me!!), soon, it's GONE. 

I can't believe how Michigan clear cuts. The devastation is hideous. What is left is a wretched mess. 

I can give you lists and lists of places where this has happened in Michigan and other states. 

The difference between horse manure and dog feces are that dogs are carnivores and their feces contains harmful disease-causing bacteria. Their feces do NOT break down to grasses. Horses are herbivores. Their manure breaks down quickly to humus. 

It's not that horse people are lazy and don't want to clean up. My horse walks and poops. I rarely know that he IS pooping. I have no problem kicking horse manure out of the way if I'm aware of it. This past year has been horribly, horribly wet and the dirt track down below the paved sections of SLT can become dangerous to ride on so I suspect that people are riding on the paved area instead of the wet trails - or maybe it's a matter of educating those who DO ride on the pavement. As someone else mentioned, when it's wet and muddy - horses do more damage to trails. In addition, when shrubs and brush are brush hogged, they leave stubs like pungie sticks that can stab into a horse's foot - so

I'm sure the majority of horse people have abandoned the idea of using the SLT - just as we have been booted from so much of Paint Creek Trail, the Polly Ann Trail, the Macomb Orchard Trail, Holly trails, Bald Mountain, Lapeer State Game area, Port Huron SGA, etc, etc. all those trails that hunters used are all overgrown because horses can no longer travel on them.


----------



## boehr

S.E.M.O.R.E. said:


> As I see it, there is no environmental damage being done by the horses.


There is one, took me all of 5 seconds to find. There are more and all one needs to do is read the thread because many are obvious.


----------



## mi_bassman

KEEP IT WILD WALK IN...It's only 118,000 acres... why trash everything?
Is there a shortage of places to ride toys?


----------



## S.E.M.O.R.E.

boehr said:


> There is one, took me all of 5 seconds to find. There are more and all one needs to do is read the thread because many are obvious.


To re-qualify my statement, aside from my OPINION's, tell me the half truths and false statements I have made pertaining to the DNR. 



mi_bassman said:


> KEEP IT WILD WALK IN...It's only 118,000 acres... why trash everything?
> Is there a shortage of places to ride toys?


Actually, yes there is. Through the regulations, one must now keep off road atv's on roadways. ALL TERRAIN VEHICLE is the last thing they are in Michigan. Snowmobiles are currently allowed off trail but theyre working on brooming them from anything but the groomed trails.

As far as "keeping it wild" I am in tune with that, but honestly, what happens when the other 10 people that want to keep it wild no longer use it? Nobody else will be either. Like Gabby said, next thing ya know, they clear cut it and sell it off. 

So what are we REALLY saving it for? I mentioned in an earlier post that state land adjacent to my camp has a tree growing up through the middle of an old 32 plymouth. THe "woods" I figured I had walked that darn few people had ever seen turns out to have been a former bustling lumbering community. Old foundations, stove parts, ink wells, etc. Pigeon is no different. It has burned, been timbered, and it's far from pristine.

DONT destroy it, but honestly, what are we saving it for? Look but dont touch?


----------



## mi_bassman

Again it's only 118,000 acres. Save it for nothing more than the proof that we
can save something. Wild means no GOLDEN ARCHES or SUPERCENTERS. 
There are plenty of places to ride toys. The horseback riding got out of control.
Now there's some rules, who doesn't have some sort of rules?Who thinks they
don't need any rules?...no one is that special. Why are horseback riders losing
ground all over the state? There must be something going on...could it be
evironmental? Or maybe we just want to single out a group of folks and ruin
their fun cause we are so darn jealous we can't stand it. Watch Norms interveiw
and pay attention to the ground, it's all tore up. Take responsibility for the
damage and quit denying it.


----------



## brisco

Thank you for expressing yourself, Semore. For the others, just a couple points.

1. Horses have been shown NOT to spread invasive species. Their gut apparently is too hot and seeds are destroyed. Can be documented if you are interested.

2. Erosion. In most of northern Michigan the soil is light, sandy. _Regardless of the type of traffic it gets, any trail getting regular substantial use will erode. So? _ If used less - less erosion. Like Semore said, the trails heal quickly and very soon grow over if not used. Manure decays and becomes part of the soil. Its _nature._

More miles of trail/open ground available to use = less erosion in any area. 

3. Horse people prefer not to use paved surfaces. The answer for people on foot vs horses is to provide an alternative parallel trail which is unpaved. We require _less_! 

4. There are so many acres of government held land in Michigan! There is room enough for you who have issues with ground up grass in piles (road apples) to stay clear. More than enough room!

5. Dollars and sense. Michigan is loosing tourism money already. Businesses are hurting because of loss after loss. This is the time to increase our state's appeal. Keep our dollars here and bring in dollars from surrounding states. Our cooler summers provide quite a draw for outdoor people whose own region is hotter and more humid on a regular basis.

Tell me, when horsemen retire from the work-a-day world, should we take our retirement monies to horse-friendly states and there buy homes, fuel, trucks and trailers. Should we pay campiing fees to Indiana, Ohio, Missouri, Colorado . . . .? Please advise. I will soon retire and 2 of our girls live out of state .....

6. Users (horse users, ATV users, snowmobilers, and others) provide lots of free labor and sometimes materials for camp improvements and trails. 

7. We are not demanding completely unrestricted access. We are trying to gain back trails the DNR has taken from us in the last 10 years without sound science, without full disclosure and without fair representation. Walk a mile in our cowboy boots and I think you will understand.

We, the people -all of us - need to keep the DNR transparent and accountable. We can't affort to let a few people with their own agendas banish the rest of us from public held lands. Yes, it is important to protect and preserve but education and cooperation is the way to longterm success. Label species, especially endangered ones. Fence or rope off areas that must be set aside. Provide printed materials to inform all users of interesting facts and so forth. Be pro-active accross the board and not heavy handed.

Elaine


----------



## duckhunter382

S.E.M.O.R.E. said:


> No, she goes for Bear, ****, cat, fish guts, and WHATEVER else stinks to high heaven to roll in. She dont pay any attention to Horse droppings.
> 
> As far as your concerns about dealing with the droppings, I say is "WELCOME TO NATURE". There are parts of this country that wild horses and burrows roam, and nobody cleans up after them. Public land is used by ranchers for grazing cattle. What about Buffalo chips? Hikers, Hunters, Fishermen, ATV enthusiasts use these lands and dont complain about it. For some unknown reason, it becomes a "problem" in Michigan.
> 
> Irresponsible Loggers? These days, they have to pull permits and here in Michigan at least, our DNR monitors them, I have to guess Oregon does the same. IF something is not done correctly seems to me if it's not fixed, the DNR is to blame. Come to think of it, the DNR is responsible for the pending legislation MUCC labels as "Bad Legislation" to restore the right to ride horses in Michigan. How much money of our billion dollar deficit has been wasted as a result of this irresponsible move by the DNR??
> 
> At the rate were going, recreation in Michigan will be so restricted and expensive, people will simply give up on it. That's a major revenue loss we cannot afford.
> 
> This thread has selfish people attempting to label Equestrians as being the selfish ones. Equestrians dont complain about hunters, fishing, hikers, atv's, snowmobiles, Loggers, etc., yet for some reason, Equestrians are complained about. I dont get it. It's public land and it should be open for all to enjoy.
> 
> Improvise, Adapt, and Overcome. SHARE. Be happy others are having fun. Realize the world does not revolve around YOU.
> 
> If you dont want to share, go buy yourself some property, fence it off, and enjoy your world.


 If horses were wild in michigan you might have a point but deer feces and rabbit and most animals in the areas I hunt are very small compared to horse manure. also they dont always crap in walking trails but horses are always on trails and therefore everytime they crap while not at camp it is on a trail. If dog owners at a park didnt clean up after themselves they could be ticketed and dogs would no longer be allowed there. I hunt at pines point and the horse camps out there are rediculous, Try camping in the fall when they leave for the year. there are piles everywhere sometimes two feet or more deep. I would love for all users to clean up after themselves and would have no problem with horses except in my experience camps have so many horses for such a long time that the natural lay of the land is lost. at least deer camps or fishing camps are only for small amounts of time each year. I would support your cause if you were expected the same as the rest of us. I believe that everyone who uses public land should treat it better than what I see.


----------



## brisco

*You know so much about the history of the trails - who donated what! I'm impressed! I have never taken my horse south of Hungerford to ride since being adult and don't know beans about the lower parts of the mitt. From what you have said, I can't believe we have waited so long to unify. I wish legislation wasn't necessary but clearly it is. Without us facing this giant now, the next generation will have nothing. *
[/COLOR] 
*Elaine*


----------



## Gabrielle

duckhunter382 said:


> If horses were wild in michigan you might have a point but deer feces and rabbit and most animals in the areas I hunt are very small compared to horse manure. also they dont always crap in walking trails but horses are always on trails and therefore everytime they crap while not at camp it is on a trail. If dog owners at a park didnt clean up after themselves they could be ticketed and dogs would no longer be allowed there. I hunt at pines point and the horse camps out there are rediculous, Try camping in the fall when they leave for the year. there are piles everywhere sometimes two feet or more deep. I would love for all users to clean up after themselves and would have no problem with horses except in my experience camps have so many horses for such a long time that the natural lay of the land is lost. at least deer camps or fishing camps are only for small amounts of time each year. I would support your cause if you were expected the same as the rest of us. I believe that everyone who uses public land should treat it better than what I see.


Think about this - who do you suppose makes the trails that people walk on? The DNR doesn't. Hunters don't. Birds don't. I bet it's horseback riders that keep trails trimmed back. If snowmobiles use the trails, they like the trees trimmed back up high so that when there's a few feet of snow on the ground, they don't get whacked in the face. Guess who keeps the trails cleared up higher than 5'? 

In Lapeer SGA - the hunters can't get back from the parking areas because the trails are grown over. No ATVs, no snowmobiles, no horses to make and maintain trails and it's NOT the DNR's job. Ask them and they'll tell you it's not their job. 
Hunters are not allowed to DRAG their kill out because - oh goodness - the Eco Freaks would scream that the drag will disturb the underbrush. So - heft that carcass up and carry it. Oh. No trails? whoops- too bad. deal with it. 

I had this discussion with the Mtn Bikers too. Some have NO idea that many of their trails were originally created by - GASP - Horses. But the mtn bikers (Mindy Koch) don't like bumpety trails. They don't like mud and they know that their wheels cause ruts that are worse than horses (DNR says so too) - so guess what? They want pounded dirt trails. They want picture perfect trails. Horses don't care what kind of terrain it is. 

I was out driving today. Lapeer and Macomb counties. The automobile trails (roads and highways) were TERRIBLE!! Wicked pot holes, patches all over, car parts on the side of the road; empty beer boxes, pop cans, other trash. Lord almighty - there was at least 3 dead raccoons, a dead possum, someone's cat - Don't people know they should go out and clean up their dead cat!  I mean - it makes the road slippery and I hate that stuff that gets caught in my tires!!.  There were a couple of dead deer along the shoulder too. Why doesn't the DNR clean them up? It stinks to high heaven!! I had to roll my windows up.


----------



## shorthair guy

I didnt know horses were not allowed there? Last few times I have been north of the dnr post there have been folks riding the trails.

I could care less if horse folks are using any state land but I feel there should be some laws. 
Example would be wearing hunter orange during hunting season. 
There should be some kind of registration/license fee, my dogs have to be licensed. Orvs are licensed. 
Age requirements, Maybe safety requirements for children(ex. helmets)
I feel all users of state land should provide some sort of user fee.(bike riders, rustic campers, mushroom pickers ect.....)
Trails closed for rifle season. 
Marked trails 
I think most folks that are against horse folks have just had some bad experiences with some a...holes that dont represent the majority of the riders.


----------



## mi_bassman

What can be done to change the practice of riding a horse out into the 
stream or lake to water them? Large groups of horses watering in the 
same spot causes bank erosion. Can you find a way to water the horse
without doing damage?


----------



## Gabrielle

mi_bassman said:


> What can be done to change the practice of riding a horse out into the
> stream or lake to water them? Large groups of horses watering in the
> same spot causes bank erosion. Can you find a way to water the horse
> without doing damage?


There are numerous instances of horseback riding associations working with the DNR to create safe and sustainable access to cross streams and/or water horses. Gridded mats provide a good base with stone or similar substance over it. 

Please keep in mind that not only horses access streams, creeks, ponds, and lakes. Persons using kayaks/canoes and other floatable devices want access to the riverways. Wildlife jump up and down and create pathways that are then used by horses or other persons. 

At Goose Creek campground, there are steps that lead down to the creek on both sides. The steps are a combination of cement and wood. Recently, small rounded stone was added at the bottom of the steps. When I was there, I saw 4 or 5 kayakers using that access; people were fishing from there (and, horseback riders asked permission to go into the water from those who were fishing before going into the water); and people were walking into and out of the creek by the same steps. 

Earlier this spring, the Michigan Trail Riders Association (MTRA) worked with the DNR to improve another access site. It included widening the path and replacing the matting with a newer, improved type. That pathway is used by horses and also by a handicapped gentlemen who launches his canoe from there. The stone and materials were donated by Consumers Energy. The work was donated by MTRA members. 

At Luzerne & 4 Mile campgrounds / trails; the horse people have built hundreds of feet of bridge over wetlands. These bridges are used by hikers, birdwatchers, and horses. Do the horse people demand a "user pass" for these? No. Did it cost the state for these areas? Only in the time used by state employees to evaluate and help "engineer" these access areas. Citizens pay the salaries of DNR employees just for this sort of thing. The materials were either donated or paid for by MTRA. The work was donated by MTRA members and the hours that volunteers work is kept track of. I wish I had the figures to share with you. 

Just as sporting associations consist of people from all walks of life, so too are horseback riding associations. Farmers, engineers, office workers, steel fabricators, electricians, and other skilled tradesmen. The MTRA has people who are engineers, environmentally concerned people, etc. and with instructional material provided by the Federal government - engineering drawings, etc., the areas of concern are addressed as best as possible. Some examples are USDA publications: Equestrian Design Guidebook for Trails, Trailheads, & Campgrounds. Geosynthetics for Trails in Wet Areas. Created in cooperation with the US Dept of Transportation. Also - the books and guides for building mountain bike trails. 

The lack of signage for all users is the obvious missing link. The lack of ENFORCEMENT means that people know what they can get away with whether it's speeding on highways or fishing out of season or riding off trail or hunting without a license. However, with the cooperation and education of all user groups, we COULD overcome this problem. Why not signs saying horses yield to those who are fishing? 

At the Federal campgrounds at South Branch, there are now split rail fence sections in areas to prevent access by horses and hikers to certain areas and stop people from damaging the banks. But unless people are made aware of the potential damage - how do they know? Again - signage and education.

I can think of many access areas to water that have not changed in the 7 or 8 years that I have visited those places by horseback. At least 6 of those sites have NO geosynthetic bases - just natural sand beach-like access. Visited by hundreds of horses during spring, summer, and fall riding times as well as other users.


----------



## mi_bassman

Sorry....but the sight of half a dozen horses standing in a small Brookie
stream watering doesn't paint a pretty picture....can you use horse
hydration packs or collapsable buckets, really long straws..( joke)..anything
but take the horse out into the stream. BTW... I like this much better, no 
nasty stuff, no name calling, stay on subject discussion..much more
productive....nice....calm.


----------



## Gabrielle

mi_bassman said:


> Sorry....but the sight of half a dozen horses standing in a small Brookie
> stream watering doesn't paint a pretty picture....can you use horse
> hydration packs or collapsable buckets, really long straws..( joke)..anything
> but take the horse out into the stream. BTW... I like this much better, no
> nasty stuff, no name calling, stay on subject discussion..much more
> productive....nice....calm.


Yes, this is much better. 

If you can explain what horses do when walking through a stream, that will help me better understand what the problem(s) is. I've heard that horses stir up sediment that then covers egg nest areas. What time of year does that happen? Don't some fishermen/women wear waders so that they can walk in the water? 

Do horses disturb the fish? or do they disturb the people that are fishing? 

There are collapsable buckets that riders can carry. Then they dismount and scoop water from a stream or lake and water their horse. I carry an extra large clear plastic baggie that can be used to scoop water to water my horse - plus - I've taught my horse to take water from a squirt water bottle - but not all horses can do that - and what he gets that way is not enough if we were to be out for more than 4 hours on a hot day. 

Using the bucket/ baggie - I still have to get down to the water and I would need a place to tie my horse while I do that. Uh oh, no hitch posts - now what? can't tie a horse to a tree either. If there are several riders, than one can hold horses while the other gets water - but we should consider the single horse and rider too to be sure we cover all situations. 

Another typical problem is that horse campgrounds only have hand pumps (pitcher pumps). Some people haul water in their truck or trailer for their horses, but it's usually not enough for long trips. Horses need 8 - 12 gallons of water PER DAY. That's why whenever horses are at natural water, it makes sense to let them drink as much as they want. 

A way around this trouble might be to create watering places by pipeline or natural spring that can be naturally filtered to avoid standing water for insect breeding. There's a place in Northern NY along a river where water was diverted to a nursing home for use in the laundry house. (No longer active)

and there is still the problem of crossing any of the myriad lakes and streams throughout Michigan.


----------



## mi_bassman

Why do you keep comparing horses walking in a stream and fishermen, 
people don't weigh 1200 lbs. We can't even compare a 700 lb. elk to a
1200 lb. horse. And ...yes I can explain what it does... It upsets trout
fishermen. So if the trout fishermen, bow hunters, elk veiwers, bird 
hunters, turkey hunters, and the eco freaks all get upset and complain
what then? I'd say it's time to change the way the equestrians do things.
Maybe an attitude change to begin with, no group should be excluded,
and no one wants to exclude you, but we may be able to force change.
If it takes climbing down off the horse and using a collapsible bucket to
water the horse....thats what it takes...tie the horse to a tree he won't
debark it that fast. Change the way you do things until the complaints
slow down or stop.


----------



## Gabrielle

mi_bassman said:


> Why do you keep comparing horses walking in a stream and fishermen,
> people don't weigh 1200 lbs. We can't even compare a 700 lb. elk to a
> 1200 lb. horse. And ...yes I can explain what it does... It upsets trout
> fishermen. So if the trout fishermen, bow hunters, elk veiwers, bird
> hunters, turkey hunters, and the eco freaks all get upset and complain
> what then? I'd say it's time to change the way the equestrians do things.
> Maybe an attitude change to begin with, no group should be excluded,
> and no one wants to exclude you, but we may be able to force change.
> If it takes climbing down off the horse and using a collapsible bucket to
> water the horse....thats what it takes...tie the horse to a tree he won't
> debark it that fast. Change the way you do things until the complaints
> slow down or stop.


WOW... what happened to nice **** chat? 
I'm not saying equestrians cannot change. All I'm trying to do is understand what the scientific and/or perceived problem is. ntil I understand what the problem is, I cannot visualize the solution. 

That adage "if you aren't part of the solution, you're part of the problem" is my philosophy. I don't want to whine that there's a problem unless I can propose a solution. 

Horses tied to trees - it's not "debarking" by chewing that is the problem. It's horses pawing and damaging the root system and disturbing the dirt around the base of the tree. Nearly every environmental agency does NOT allow horses to be tied to trees for this reason. I can find the statutes and laws if you really need them. 

ATVs, dirt bikes, pedal bikes upset ME. Does that mean they should be excluded and/or change their ways? What if hunting or fishing upset ME? 
What I'm trying to say is, all users should be allowed to use the land. There has to be rules and enforcement. There has to be communication between town, county, and state agencies AND THE USERS. Just as towns, cities, villages hold public meetings BEFORE changes are made - the DNR, FWS, etc. etc. should conduct public meetings with all stakeholders - not just a few selected individuals appointed by the agency to boards. By having USERS at meetings, we can all hear concerns and figure out - together using facts, how to resolve them. 
In some cases, that might mean moving trails or creating other access areas. It might mean that signage is needed. It might be education for all users. 

When towns, villages, cities, counties, state and US agencies invoke changes with no scientific data - or use data that is not correct, and exclude single users without notification or discussion - then the democracy and freedoms that US citizens have, are squashed. 
Regarding Pigeon River State Forest - if the MDNR had allowed a 1 year moratorium, as was requested, then specific issues and practical solutions could have been discussed and mutually agreeable resolutions created. 

Just as ATVs and snowmobiles and all other users want their concerns heard and answered - equestrians do too. Sometimes equestrians feel that only anglers, hunters, and mtn bike riders are listened to. It's about fairness. If horse trails are taken away in one area, they should be provided in other areas - not forced onto narrow, dangerously driven roads. If volunteers take the time to create things and pay for wells, hitching posts, roads, geosynthetic mats and gravel and those areas are taken away for nefarious and NON scientific reasons, then those resources should be replaced at no cost to the volunteer organizations that put them in place. 
Same for snowmobile or ATV camp areas and trails. Same for hunting and fishing access sites. 

so far as comparing horses to humans to wildlife... I understand that horses weigh more than deer, elk, and humans. But disturbing sediment is disturbing sediment. The pointed hoof of a deer goes deeper into silt than a flat, round hoof of a horse or the boot of a person. Same for elk. Believe me, I have crossed enough muddy places where there are deer tracks to see how DEEP they go, compared to my horse's tracks. It's like a woman in high heels versus an 80,000 pound tractor trailer on asphalt. One will pierce, the other will not. 

During a teleconference a few weeks back, some "facts" that MUCC was claiming, were found to be NOT TRUE. The "fact sheet" that MUCC has been using has NO citations as to where the facts came from. So their "facts" are unsubstantiated and in some cases are simply fiction. 

I am truly sorry that you are personally disturbed by horses in waterways. I am sure there are others that feel that way too - but as yet I've never encountered any. When I encounter people fishing, I ask permission to move into or through an area and I've never received a nasty or negative response. If the trail is narrow, I wait patiently for the person fishing to tell me when they are ready for me to pass.


----------



## mi_bassman

There's an old saying....give them enough rope and they'll hang themselves.
Forget the atvs, snowmoblies, and dirt bikes...we are talking about HORSES
right now...so right now there are no other groups...right now equestrians
are under the spot light all by themselves. OK....so forget science, forget
effects, forget smart a_ _ arguements, and nasty come backs. Right now
TODAY....there are enough residents of this state complaining about your
activity to squash it into the dirt...so if you want to ride your horses on 
public land ....change the way you do things....UNDERSTAND


----------



## jnracing

ok ive just read a couple pages of this and am beyond peeved about this whole thing i ride horse ALL the time through areas all over the state i hunt off my horse in multiple states and disturbing wildlife HAHAHAHAAH thats why i can walk within 50 yards of deer and they keep feeding no issue right cause theyre disturbed and silt is silt get over it i want to see numbers of silt being more than that caused by the tens of thousands of PEOPLE wading in the stream versus the thousands of horses hmmmm not to mention we cross and get out they wade around and move around in the stream for hours i know i fly fish on ocasion and i hunt and i run hounds and i camp off my horse on many occasions. a horse can go where a quad cant i cant ride a quad into where my dogs are most the time where i can a horse not to mention gas prices. i pay all the same stuff you do for hunting and fishing i do it all i have almost every liscence and application you can buy not to mention tags and camp site fees and with the economy the way it is what about all the feed and work we hire or buy or all the property taxes we pay to own property to own those horses how about all the work horses do in some communities how about the revenue from horse boarding and the people that own or work for them and a horse leaves about as much damage as a deer and you try to account for their size lets do ratios have you seen how big a horse is compared to there hooves now lets do a weight ratio comparing deer and horses and lets factor in shape let me do some reaserch and ill have numbers for you


----------



## S.E.M.O.R.E.

mi_bassman said:


> There's an old saying....give them enough rope and they'll hang themselves.
> Forget the atvs, snowmoblies, and dirt bikes...we are talking about HORSES
> right now...so right now there are no other groups...right now equestrians
> are under the spot light all by themselves. OK....so forget science, forget
> effects, forget smart a_ _ arguements, and nasty come backs. Right now
> TODAY....there are enough residents of this state complaining about your
> activity to squash it into the dirt...so if you want to ride your horses on
> public land ....change the way you do things....UNDERSTAND


MY GOODNESS, look who is getting so testy!! Youre like Daffy Duck in the bank vault. It's mine mine mine all mine, keep away, mine, back off..I would venture a guess you could pick the time and place to pull a crowd together on this issue and there would be a lot more horse backers than anti-horse folks. I believe the science arguement was started by your herd....something about weed seeds and eco systems? The only reason Equestrians are the only ones in the spotlight is because they are the only organized group in this state that has the backbone to stand up to this nonsense, UNLIKE the snowmobile, atv and bicycle groups. You really need to calm down.



jnracing said:


> ok ive just read a couple pages of this and am beyond peeved about this whole thing i ride horse ALL the time through areas all over the state i hunt off my horse in multiple states and disturbing wildlife HAHAHAHAAH thats why i can walk within 50 yards of deer and they keep feeding no issue right cause theyre disturbed and silt is silt get over it i want to see numbers of silt being more than that caused by the tens of thousands of PEOPLE wading in the stream versus the thousands of horses hmmmm not to mention we cross and get out they wade around and move around in the stream for hours i know i fly fish on ocasion and i hunt and i run hounds and i camp off my horse on many occasions. a horse can go where a quad cant i cant ride a quad into where my dogs are most the time where i can a horse not to mention gas prices. i pay all the same stuff you do for hunting and fishing i do it all i have almost every liscence and application you can buy not to mention tags and camp site fees and with the economy the way it is what about all the feed and work we hire or buy or all the property taxes we pay to own property to own those horses how about all the work horses do in some communities how about the revenue from horse boarding and the people that own or work for them and a horse leaves about as much damage as a deer and you try to account for their size lets do ratios have you seen how big a horse is compared to there hooves now lets do a weight ratio comparing deer and horses and lets factor in shape let me do some reaserch and ill have numbers for you


spot on!


----------



## mi_bassman

If you can't figure out what's wrong with 6 horses standing in a small trout
stream watering...than your cause is in trouble.


----------



## S.E.M.O.R.E.

Mi Bassman, do you fully realize how many and who your are dealing with on this issue?

Honestly, I have only heard YOU, a couple others on this thread, and one outdoor publication editor complain about the horses in Pigeon River.

What are you going to do the day the Amish folks decide to have a group event in Pigeon? I can tell you USFWS position on it. It runs along the lines of being "politically correct", and I heard that directly "from the horses mouth" at USFWS. (sorry couldnt resist)

I wonder how Nyberg handled knowing he had admonished the pending legislation in a news interview, saying if it became law, horses would be able to ride right up grand avenue to the capital, and then two days later the Clydesdales and Budweiser Wagon was circling the Capital.

DNR and MUCC are running out of excuses to justify the poor decision made by DNR. Suddenly were all about dialogue to work out a reasonable agreement? Where was that effort before cramming the decision down the Equestrians throats without any discussion?

IN MY WORLD, I am prepared to fight this to the bitter end, come what may legislatively, just to take the bite out of the DNR's ways. They have stepped over the line too far and enough is enough. At this point it seems the Detroit Public School System could better manage the DNR. I feel so sorry for the field level personnel, they MUST be miserable!

As a dual property tax payer in the state of Michigan, I already pay to use state land. I understand the concept of purchasing a hunting license, a fishing license, and registering my snowmobiles and atv. What I dont like is being charged to utilize my snowmobile anywhere in the state, via a mandatory trail permit to support a trail system I dont utilize, in addition to the registration. This is the tactic Michigan Snowmobile Association uses....if you want to play you got to pay. Well who says so????? 

They also lied to snowmobilers, concealing their real intentions of increasing trail permit fees to 75.00 per year per sled by 2014, while telling everyone they had only proposed a mere 10.00 increase to gain support. Lucky for us, the Legislature stepped in and put a partial stop on it, limiting the increase to 45.00. 

The MSA would have us believe the DNR ripped off funding for Law Enforcement or attempted to. The reality is MSA changed the structure of funding, origionally set up to fund law enforcement, from two separate accounts to combining them and then attempting to take all of it, the registration fee account, and the trail permit fee accounts, and prevent DNR from getting anything for Law Enforcement. MSA rolled over and played dead only demanding ATV's also be removed from Pigeon. Talk about a dictatorship and dirty politics. 

I used to purchase 4 trail permits, spent 100.00 per year. Well last year I only purchased 2 trail permits, so the system got half of what I would have paid. Next year, I will ony buy 1 trail permit MAYBE. At best they now only get 35.00. Wonder how many others will do the same thing? Factor in the loss of jobs in the target audience, and MSA and the Grant sponsors are going to take a serious hit. REAP IT! 

I realize snowmobiling and horseback riding are two different activities, but they are also the same in a lot of ways. Many folks are multi activity recreationalists. I like to go snowmobiling and atv'ing in the areas that I hunt on foot. Thanks to selfish people all about frogs, spiders, and in general rediculous eco-system CLAIMS, I as a dual property tax payer cannot do that and it makes me mad. There is no good reason to stop it. I dont hurt the land a bit. Places I have gone, in the first place, NOBODY else does, and if they do, they arent impacted by it, and in the second place, I would defy you to see where I had been after the first rain storm. In the fall, yes the tracks are in the grass but by spring, it's all grown over and you would never see where I was. BIG DEAL! SO WHAT! It's not hurting a thing! It was good honest wholesome clean family fun. Now it's admonshed as somehow not healthy for our precious planet. DUH!!

You cannot legislate everything. There is give and take, I get that. Problem is political agenda's. There are those that get in this game to generate revenue and capitalize off the backs of people and lie to boot, and there are those who get money from grants to play chicken little on behalf of the eco system, essentially contributing to the great distraction, so higher up entities can continue their agenda's un noticed.

I would rather get legislation passed mandating horses have a right to ride in all the areas they traditionally have, and I would like to see a complete reversal of all the properties that have been closed off to horses in the last 20 years. If that puts them higher on the pedastal, GOOD! Maybe the other recreational enthusiasts that have been in their sheeple modes will wake up. If that legislation takes away DNR's authority over grant funded lands, and disqualifies eligibility for funding, SO WHAT! The way I see it, if there's no money, the chicken littles will leave, and Michigan can be the pioneers showing the rest of the country how to truly enjoy the out of doors, vs. how to restrict and take it away. 

25 million is NOTHING. I am sure Granholm would love it if Michigan only had a 25 million dollar deficit. I predict the loss would have ZERO impact in the grand scheme of things. Look at what they are doing now with all the money they have coming in. Were still broke. to me the numbers dont add up that way, but by the time they get done with the money shell game, who knows what is where and how it got there.

Quit using horses for the excuse that the fish arent biting!


----------



## mi_bassman

Why are you losing riding ground all across the state?


----------



## jnracing

ook we as "equine enthusiats" are not losing property to ride ride in the up all the time not one thing said never ridden pigeon mountain but hey to all his own


----------



## S.E.M.O.R.E.

mi_bassman said:


> Why are you losing riding ground all across the state?


The sweetheart back door deals between certain individuals in positions of perceived power amongst the ATV and Snowmobile groups. It's a very subtle prohibitive manipulative procedure to convince everyone that the only place to utilize snowmobiles, atv's, and mountain bikes is on specifically designed and maintained trails, which in turn justifies the fees, which are tapped for personal gain. It's a big scam. It takes a few decades to brainwash the user groups. Me being a dinosaur so to speak, I am seeing CHANGE that others dont realize. Is the trail system a good one? Yes. Is every dollar collected utilized as it's intended? NO! Regardless, a premier trail destination is useless if nobody comes. The less folks use the trails, the less grooming, the less money needed. Guaranteed, they will justify every dollar on paper, but we dont get the bang for the buck. and we have to buy their permits regardless if we do or dont ride the groomed trails. Funny how the suspect grant sponsors tapping the system for what they can get and doing as little as they have to are the radicals that pushed for the permit fee increases. Things might be non-profit on the storefront, but behind the scenes, well, nobody does anything for free.

There is no justification to limit public land useage short of disturbing the peace. While that statute is pretty broad, consider the folks that built homes around the shooting range. They tried to get it shut down due to the noise and perceived dangers. They got told take a hike. Ditto for those that purchased or built in the area of Metro Airport. They knew what they were getting into, and suddenly the world has to evolve around them, past practice must CHANGE. Get a life! The whole objective to going to remote areas to recreate is to avoid disturbing others, where it SHOULD be no problem. Unfortunately, those control minded folks have now invaded our forests and wilderness. Suddenly a bear does mess in the woods, a falling tree does make noise. Pretty sad.

Certified Forestry has crept in under the guise of making more off of lumber harvested from certified forests. They have sucked in the lumber jacks, by the time the jig was up it was too late. In order to comply with certification, it's creeping toward ZERO impact. Akin to the carbon credits tax game. The quality of the wood is the same, it's all about the dues paid to sell it off. Ted Turner has bought up all kinds of land and plays the big wild game. His agenda put controls on the lumber we buy in Home Depot, Lowes etc. You cant have snowmobiles, atv's, hunting, fishing, equestrians, campers etc. trapseing all over zero impact land. What's wrong with this picture?? It's all about throwing us off the land period.

You think your world is perfect restricting user groups, but what you fail to realize is your user group day is coming. Every morsel they take is one you dont have, and trust me, the way it's going, they are going to get theirs.

No reply on the Amish folks? I personally would love to see that showdown. The DNR's infinite ignorant agenda to own OUR LAND failed to consider the rights of all people when they implemented their policy. The smartest thing they could do is withdraw it before the legislation get's passed, and negotiate dropping the legislation. Otherwise, I hope it hits them where it hurts.


----------



## Gabrielle

mi_bassman said:


> Why are you losing riding ground all across the state?


That's EXACTLY what the horse people want to know!! 

The DNR can't seem to give us reasons that hold water. The DNR reclassified thousands of acres of donated and tax reverted land, and land that was originally bought and paid for with GENERAL FUND money (until that was changed) to STATE GAME AREAS. And ,oh gee... Where once users could USE the land, only mtn bikes, campers, anglers, and hunters are allowed. 

MCL 324.504 - R299.922, Unlawful Acts Generally, Rule 22. On lands owned or under the control of the department, it is unlawful for a person or persons to do any of the following:.." ... and it lists (a) through (w) and inlcudes "...(v) To ride or lead a horse, pack animal or other riding animal, or any animal-driven vehicle on any area, except on roads that are open to the use of motor vehicles, trails, bridle paths and campgrounds designated for such use by the department and on state forest lands not posted closed to such use or entry. "

So, this is how the DNR does it. It says out of one side of its mouth "all those gazillions of acres for recreational use" ... and then says .. "but you can't go there, or there, or there, or there; and you can't use this or that or the other thing."

By the way, you are forbidden to have class containers on the land and water, too. No w(h)ine bottles fellahs!! LOL... :lol: Throw away plastic is perfectly fine though. grrrrr... 

And you can't have anything that produces "excessive noise" (no loud farts please - it might disturb the deer, fish, birds, and insects). And of course no motorized vehicles except on designated routes, trails, or areas - which are few and far between. 

The DNR tried to claim that horses spread "weeds". Well, the horse people produced 6 studies from universities and agencies that proved that was WRONG. 
The DNR is trying to claim that users disturb elk calving season that runs from June through August - but birdwatchers, berry-pickers, hikers, anglers, etc. are allowed to roam anywhere they want. It's been shown that ELK are NOT afraid of horses. So how can horses disturb calving season but people don't??? 
The DNR claimed that there was user conflict. But they have NOT produced the reports.
To my knowledge, the state game areas that were closed to horses had NO user conflict between hunting and fishing and horses. In fact, many of the horse people would hunt and fish when camping with their families. 

So... we don't know WHY the DNR feels the need to exclude horses or other users from the majority of state land. And why there are such strict limits in state parks. Horses are allowed in Central Park in New York. Only horses are allowed on Mackinaw island (no cars). ????


----------



## Gabrielle

shorthair guy said:


> I didnt know horses were not allowed there? Last few times I have been north of the dnr post there have been folks riding the trails.
> 
> I could care less if horse folks are using any state land but I feel there should be some laws.
> Example would be wearing hunter orange during hunting season.
> There should be some kind of registration/license fee, my dogs have to be licensed. Orvs are licensed.
> Age requirements, Maybe safety requirements for children(ex. helmets)
> I feel all users of state land should provide some sort of user fee.(bike riders, rustic campers, mushroom pickers ect.....)
> Trails closed for rifle season.
> Marked trails
> I think most folks that are against horse folks have just had some bad experiences with some a...holes that dont represent the majority of the riders.


LSGA was closed to horses about 8-9 years ago. Some families were threatened REPEATEDLY by DNR techs that they would be ticketed. $300 per person, per instance. There are 2 areas: Vernor Estates and Kings Ranch. Both areas were DONATED LAND.

Dogs are licensed due to the threat of rabies. Don't ask me why cats aren't licensed. They can carry rabies and bite. I wish they would figure out a way to license the wildlife that carries rabies. ha ha ha. 

Why safety requirements? To what purpose? There are equine liability laws in place. 

So far as all users paying a fee. Uhmmm... it's called TAXES. Why is it so many other states have all these activities without the amount of licensing and fees that Michigan has? If you think that all users should pay to use public lands - then please don't get upset when all interstates become TOLL ROADS. 

When camping, did you know that horse people pay a higher fee than non-horse people? 
For instance, at Goose Creek Campground. EACH PERSON in the horse campground pays $6 per night. No running water, no electric hookups, no flush toilets, no picnic tables, no firerings, no Grills. There is a hand pump (pitcher pump) for water.

Yet, for PEOPLE, it's $15 per night per CAMP. So a family of 6 people pay $15 per night. Each campsite has a picnic table and a grill. The people can swim and raft and canoe and go into and out of the water as much as they want. They can fish (with a fishing license). 
Horse family with 6 would pay $36 per night. No picnic table. No grill.

So far as bad experiences ... it happens to everyone with just about any user group. Sometimes I see many idiots at public swimming places. I see idiots on the road EVERY-SINGLE-DAY. There are probably bad boaters too that do not observe speed limits or shore-distances.


----------



## jnracing

we do all pay usage fees okay yes you state orv stickers ok well just because of that i am gonna buy a orv sticker and stick it on my saddle in the rear then i will still be told i have no right to be somewhere and ill say i have all the rights of an atv or truck or dirtbike with an orv sticker cause i have one on my "vehicle" correct so any place closed to horses but open to orver's is now open to me then correct since im riding an "off-road vehicle" that is tagged and the hunter orange thing i can uderstand that and some safety stuff DURING gun season but what about conservation officer horses they go wherever they please and nobody argues with them y cause they are an authority so there outside the laws right wrong because there is nothing wrong with a horse walking around i would hate to see how all you folk would have acted in the western days theyd a hung ya up they still would down south the people in michigan and dnr of michigan are so snobby and think we own it all because of taxes so i dont want this this this .....etc on MY land ok well newsflash its not YOUR land its EVERYONES land i helped pay for it just as everybody else so now dont i have a right to use my horse on said land?
just as any equine person should i have posted in a link to this forum in several horse websites so this should get intresting especially with one of them being gov funded horse website

btw bassman dnr are gonna look into it for me regarding that deer have more weight per inch of hoof and shape than a horse so why you were saying size well a horse spreads its weight out over a broader area than a deer just so in essence deer cause more damage


----------



## mi_bassman

By restricting riding to marked trails and eliminating cross country riding,
hunters, elk veiwers and others can avoid horseback riders because they
know where the trails are. This should cut down on the user conflict
complaints. How do horseback riders disturb calving season? 
By relentless pursuit...the elk can't get away...horseback riders chase
them everywhere...on the other hand, people don't generally pursue
elk on foot because they can't keep up.


----------



## jnracing

well personally ive never seen the "relentless" chase of elk anywhere especially when i can walk up TO them and right past with no notice because a horse looks like another animal walking through


----------



## Gabrielle

mi_bassman said:


> By restricting riding to marked trails and eliminating cross country riding,
> hunters, elk veiwers and others can avoid horseback riders because they
> know where the trails are. This should cut down on the user conflict
> complaints. How do horseback riders disturb calving season?
> By relentless pursuit...the elk can't get away...horseback riders chase
> them everywhere...on the other hand, people don't generally pursue
> elk on foot because they can't keep up.


It has nothing to do with "chasing" wildlife. Nearly any disturbance would be disruptive to a wild animal birthing but ELK ARE NOT AFRAID of horses. Elk are afraid of PEOPLE and other predators. In fact, ELK are not entirely afraid of people. Ask Vicki Reinhardt who had Elk tear out fences on her property. She had elk rip bales of hay out from under heavy-duty, tied down, tarps. She fired noise-maker shotgun shells that were given to her by the MNDR to scare away the elk that were destroying her property outside the Pigeon. The elk did NOT go away. And despite her continual pleas for help and assistance, it wasn't until hunting season opened that some of the starving elk could be shot. And THEN, the Mich Dept of Ag came in and accused her of BAITING!! It happens to farmers too when the elk invade crop fields. 

Who will keep the ELK within their magical forest and not out trampling and eating farmers' crops and eating the hay of MOUNTED DIVISION equestrians (law enforcement)?

And here's my question. If horses have to stay on trails, who will search for missing people?


----------



## mi_bassman

What....elk are afraid of people...then in the same sentence....in fact elk are
NOT afraid of people...which is it? Elk may not be afraid of horses, but what
about those things on their back.... that smell like old spice, or axe, or 
cigaretts...and talks or laughs. The things on the horses back that give
constant chase, the elk don't get a moments rest. What is that some
kind of whacked out new sport....CHASE THE ELK. Stay on the trail...
dogs can find all those lost people...Oh yeah...if you want to cross
a trout stream on your horse...pay for a bridge...if you want to water
your horse....use a bucket. Bring a shovel and a big bag, and take your 
horse droppings home...it's great on gardens...not so good in the woods.


----------



## mi_bassman

If you leave no trace where did all that poop come from?


----------



## shorthair guy

Why should other user groups have to pay.....budget shortfalls, why should hunters and fisherman be the only ones to pay higher user fees? I like the proposed 10 dollar voluntary registration. 
As you horse folks recall I said I didnt care if you used all state land but than you come off as attacking, this is not the way to get support. 
Why should there be safety rules.....hmmmm i guess it would be to protect people, folks have to wear helmits when on an orv. 
Hunters orange while riding in the woods this only makes sense to help protect against accidents during hunting season. 
Age restriction on kids riding......my daughter at the age of 12 still has a hard time controlling her horse when it decides it wants to go somewhere it shouldnt.


----------

