dennismurphy wrote: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?