This affects *all* the trails you ride

[cramer]

Just a reminder to membership about this bill and Representative McMasters' planned attendance at the MMBA Expo at Noon on the 29th.

I also sent him this email today:

Just a quick reminder of the expo on Jan 29th.

Also, to clarify... I know you had the legislation out for wording-approval from the federal govt regarding PittmanRoberts funding.. however, I think that that is NOT the primary issue about which our organization is concerned. In general, as citizens we are of course concerned about loss of funding and it may be that you've got wording in the legislation which addresses the Fish&Wildlife folks for the financial side.

No- our PRIMARY concern is that wording in the bill coulld be interpreted as opening any or all trails in the state to horse use where it might not now be allowed. It also seems fairly generic and doesn't seem to distinguish between state lands and county or municipal properties - which might mean state law supersedes a county rule which currently prevents horse riding in some area- but would now be allowed under the state legislation.

I just want this to be clear on the 29th so that no valuable time is wasted discussing funding when the real issue is, for our membership, blanket access by equestrians to trails not suited to to their use.

In our last conversation he mentioned a revised bill was out for review by the NFWS which oversees funding via PittmanRoberts. In my view I think that for our concerns this aspect is irrelevant.
The NFWS might approve the wording for THEIR PURPOSES to maintain funding, but their concern would not necessarily address ours.

Didn't make it to the expo, anyone care to post a summary of this?

[Di_bear]

Unfortunately, he was unable to make it to the expo.

[Critter7r]

I got the impression from our advocacy Guy that did speak to the small group of us in the auditorium that the bill is sort of in limbo at the moment.

[Di_bear]

That is correct.

[dennismurphy]

Limbo would give you the wrong impression IMO

According to our advocacy team- the bill is in committee. The discussion indicated that most (many) of the committee members were still not if favor of the bill - but my impression was that this is primarily due to the fact that the National Fish&Wildlife Feds are still opposed to the bill and threaten to withhold funding via the Pittman-Roberts funding rules. This was despite the fact that the bill's wording was amended to try to appease the federal officials.

The bill is still in committee and according to the information, it could still be moved out on to the floor if the committee approves the bill

If the wording is further altered- a factor we would not have any visibility on via the Legislative websites, it could go to the floor for readings and eventual vote and unless we stay on top of alterations to wording we could see the bill voted on with surprise to the wording primarily because of the nature of how bills get their wording changed via our legislative process

IMO the bill is still a threat and will be until the end of the legislative session Dec 31, 2012 at which time all bills sitting in committee die.

We would then need to be on the lookout for any newly introduced bills in 2013

[Di_bear]

We would then need to be on the lookout for any newly introduced bills in 2013

Dennis, the state has a listserv that you can sign up for to see what the committee is voting on and when. It's usually last-minute info, but that seems to be how they operate.

[dennismurphy]

yes I know.

For the benefit of everyone else....

The Listserv referred to for this committee ( Natural Resources, Tourism, and Outdoor Recreation ) if anyone else wants the link is located at:
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(33gcwd ... 3ma5xer3yr))/mileg.aspx?page=listserversinglesignup&ci=3951


If you have RSS feed capability (which most smart phones now have) the RSS feeds for this specific bill is:
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents ... 684rss.xml

[Di_bear]

Limbo would give you the wrong impression IMO

Unfortunately, your opinion isn't based on experience. While the bill is in committee, it's pretty much in limbo. It's currently not getting anyone's attention. I won't discredit you for not knowing that since you had to do CPS awards during the expo and the advocacy representative showed up after you left to give his report, but I don't think you hearing him would have done any good, now would it?

Of course, I don't know jack. I only respond "rudely and petulantly and with condension," and I "don't have a social filter," but that probably stems from "immaturity and insecurity." Oh yeah, and I'm "like a spoiled child with a sense of entitlement stamping [my] feet whining 'it's MY turn MY turn, MY turn to be president' and I need to "Grow up."

[utabintarbo]

Let the games begin.

BTW, it's "condecension", not "condension".

[KLydesdale]

Let the games begin. :icon_thumleft:

BTW, it's "condecension", not "condension". :P

Isn't it actually "condescension"?

[utabintarbo]

BTW, it's "condecension", not "condension".

Isn't it actually "condescension"?

Oops! Good catch!

[dirt]

Let the games begin.

BTW, it's "condecension", not "condension".

Actually, it would be "condension(sic)", since this was a direct quote.

[KLydesdale]

Let the games begin. :icon_thumleft:

BTW, it's "condecension", not "condension". :P

Actually, it would be "condension(sic)", since this was a direct quote.

A direct quote from where? I don't see the original in this thread nor can I find it anywhere with a search.

[dennismurphy]

Took a while to get a response

On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 2:18 PM, District 74 <dist074@house.mi.gov> wrote:
Dear Dennis,
I appreciate you contacting my office and sharing your view on this issue. I am still in the process of reviewing the bill, however I am inclined to support it. Although your email is in opposition, if you have any other information you think I should have before this bill comes before me on the House floor, feel free to contact my office.
Sincerely, Dave Agema State Representative 74th District

My response

I have several reasons you should oppose it

a) the bill elevates ONE user group above all others in the state
b) the bill jeapordizes federal funding to maintain wildlife areas
c) the bill was recently revised and when it was revised the Pigeon River Area was removed from the bill- thus the whole location which was a point of contention for the Backcountry Horseman will not even be corrected for them in this bill
d) Michigan already has a mechanism and means for settling disputes with the DNR via the 2010 legislation which enacted the Trails Advisory Council on which sits representatives of numerous user groups including the equestrians- this new bill would effectively undermine this panel
e) with few exceptions, access in the state is done with scientific data as well as user group input
f) the conflict at Pigeon River was NOT driven by the state DNR- but rather by the federal Fish & Wildlife unit which issued a ruling which the DNR had to follow- forcing the DNR to enact rules which are noted in my "a' through "e" bullet points will not correct any discrepancies users may have with the federal agency

He's "inclined" to support it should it hit the floor but does not provide a reason for this inclination